This week, Trump had to hear what potential jurors really thought of him

“Oh boy, here we go,” the man said. “When I went back to Central Park, I knew some of the kids, their cousins.”

The reference had nothing to do with Trump’s divisive presidency. The man, who is black, was instead referring to a shocking 1989 rape case in New York City. Shortly after five black and Latino teenagers were arrested and identified as suspects in the brutal attack on a jogger, Trump paid for full-page newspaper ads featuring New York was called upon to reintroduce the death penalty. The five teens were fully acquitted years later, but Trump has repeatedly suggested he still believes they were guilty.

The jury selection process for Trump’s hush-money trial created something akin to a national focus group — albeit with a New York accent — that gave ordinary Americans a chance to voice their opinions and reflections on the former president’s nearly fifty years in the public spotlight .

As prosecutors and the defense team tried to weed out those with biased views of Trump, one of the most polarizing figures in American political history, a familiar dynamic was suddenly reversed. Ordinary New Yorkers who had been doing that for years listened to Trump talk about others were there to talk about him, and he was forced to listen – from a chair at the The defense table on the 15th floor of the Manhattan courtroom.

As potential jurors criticized him, Trump sat with his arms crossed and stared at them. When Trump muttered to a female juror, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan admonished him for trying to intimidate her.

The potential jurors covered a range of neighborhoods – West Village to Hell’s Kitchen to West Harlem – and professions – lawyers, nurses, municipal workers.

The most opinionated people have never been given the opportunity to express their opinions; About half of the nearly 200 potential jurors called to the courtroom the first week told Merchan they could not be fair and impartial, and the judge dismissed them from the jury pool.

Some New Yorkers who stayed had strong opinions. A man who emigrated from Italy compared Trump to disgraced former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi – who was convicted of tax fraud in 2012 – before he was excluded from the jury.

“It would be a little difficult for me to maintain my impartiality and honesty,” the man said.

Others offered a range of impressions about Trump’s career, while insisting their opinions would not affect their ability to judge him fairly.

“I have opinions. “I was born and raised in New York and I have known about Donald Trump all my life,” said a retired university administrator who told the court she once encountered Trump and his then-wife Marla Maples while shopping for a baby. supplies. The woman said her cousin once lived in Trump Tower in Midtown.

Although she claimed to have heard positive things about Trump, she told Trump’s lawyers, “The way I feel about him as president is different.”

Some New Yorkers seemed to have nuanced views. Several people had read “The Art of the Deal,” Trump’s best-selling (and ghostwritten) first book on how to succeed in business, a tome that included things like: “Bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all.” In short, controversy sells.”

“I found it entertaining,” a middle-aged man who works in real estate development said of the book. The same man told prosecutors that although his company had never made any business deals with the Trump Organization, he was “from afar a kind of admirer of some of the work.”

A lifelong New Yorker who works in law enforcement, he said he was partial to Trump because “as a wannabe hockey player, I still thank him for fixing that Wollman Rink that no one couldn’t fix.”

He was referring to a once-derelict ice skating rink in Central Park, which Trump’s company acquired from the city and converted into a popular attraction.

A man who has worked as a lawyer said he has mixed views about Trump’s political views. But he provided a more definitive view of Trump’s reality TV career.

“I was a big fan of ‘The Apprentice’ when I was in high school,” the man said, referring to the show that debuted 20 years ago, in which businesspeople competed to impress Trump, who played a version of himself as a ruthless tycoon for 14 seasons.

Trump’s celebrity raises the stakes of jury selection for both the prosecution and defense, jury consultants say. In cases involving known defendants, even jurors who claim to be impartial sometimes have deeply held beliefs that are difficult to overcome.

Nearly everyone in America knows Trump’s name, and his lawyers worry that many potential jurors in heavily Democratic Manhattan may not be willing to express their full opinions about him in open court, a person familiar with the legal strategy of the former president and who spoke on condition of anonymity told The Washington Post.

Trump’s early reputation as a larger-than-life New York personality was largely forged through his regular appearances in the gossip columns of the tabloids, the Rev. Al Sharpton, a fellow New Yorker, said in an interview. Trump’s business and dating activities were closely monitored, often through tips to reporters from Trump himself.

“A lot of it was created by the tabloids. He became a tabloid figure,” said Sharpton, who has battled with Trump on social issues. “A guy once told me from one of the tabloids, if you get (former New York mayor) Ed Koch or Donald Trump or even me, someone who is controversial, that’s what sells newspapers.”

Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, who advised OJ Simpson’s defense team during his 1995 murder trial, said a majority of potential jurors in that case had a positive opinion of the former football star, who died this month. Simpson was ultimately acquitted in the highly publicized trial.

Some viewed Simpson negatively because he was repeatedly accused of domestic violence, she said, but “by far the most vocal view was, ‘I used to watch him play USC football games and thought he was a funny actor. He has done so well for the football community.”

In Trump’s case, Dimitrius said, those who will judge “bring with them a compendium of all the knowledge New Yorkers have about him.” She emphasized that the prosecution and defense should compare prospective jurors’ answers in court with previous statements they made about Trump on social media “to determine, ‘Is this person honest? Are they hiding something?’”

Trump’s defense team worked with a jury consultant to review the social media history of potential jurors who made it through the question-and-answer portion of the selection process. Trump’s lawyers also paid close attention to the statements of potential jurors. body language as they talked about the former president, the person with knowledge of the defense team’s strategy said.

On Thursday, a woman claimed she didn’t have a “strong opinion” about Trump and could be honest. But later, under pointed questioning, she admitted that her views were indeed strong.

“He seems very selfish and selfish,” the woman said during questioning by Trump’s lawyers. “I don’t appreciate that from any official.”

Trump’s lead attorney, Todd Blanche, cited online posts, some dating back more than five years, to question the ability of potential jurors to be impartial.

In some cases, Blanche was successful, convincing Merchan to hit one man because of a 2017 Facebook post in which he had written: “Good news!! Trump lost his lawsuit over his illegal travel ban!!! Take him out and lock him up.”

Another prospective juror had posted an artificial intelligence-generated deepfake video in which Trump appears to repeatedly call himself “dumb as f…”. The man insisted he could be honest, saying it was “just something I reposted.” What I think of the defendant outside this room has nothing to do with the merits of the case.”

Another juror was shown old social media posts she had written, calling Trump a “racist, sexist and narcissist.”

“Oops, that sounds bad,” she admitted after seeing the post, before promising to be honest. She was fired in what Merchan considered a “close call.”

At other times, however, the judge rejected the defense team’s arguments that anti-Trump messages from relatives of prospective jurors should reflect that. Merchan said other posts amounted to political satire that did not indicate bias.

Merchan denied a defense team’s challenge to a woman who posted videos of New Yorkers celebrating Trump’s 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The woman told the court she was documenting “a celebratory moment in New York City.”

Other potential jurors spoke approvingly of Trump’s bombastic rhetorical style. Although Trump attacked Merchan and prosecutor Alvin Bragg, prompting the judge to issue a partial gag order, some on the jury said they appreciated Trump’s lack of filter.

A black woman who said she avoids political conversations told the court: “President Trump speaks his mind and I prefer that to someone in power where you don’t know what he’s thinking.”

A grandfather who came to New York from Puerto Rico seemed intrigued by Trump, calling him “fascinating and mysterious.” Trump “walks into a room and turns people off in some way,” the man said. “I find that very interesting.”

Blanche didn’t seem to know how to interpret his views. “Okay, thanks,” he said.

The grandfather was later selected as one of twelve jurors for the trial.