Attribution: Carol M. Highsmith , Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
By Geoff Carter
At face value, it seems naive to think that twelve randomly selected citizens can put aside their beliefs and prejudices long enough to logically assess the evidence, facts, and arguments in a court of law to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant—one of their peers—accused of a crime. But for all its idealism, the concept is a basic part of the American justice system. And it works.
It’s not a perfect system. In some cases—as in the O.J. Simpson murder trial or the Scottsboro case—citizens cannot biases and belief systems cannot be put aside from judicial process, but by and large, most juries seem to be able to be fair, objective, and follow the rules of law as set forth by the bench.
Being a juror is not necessarily an easy task. It requires sacrifice, commitment, and time—sometimes weeks out of a person’s life—to perform this necessary civic duty. The juror selection process is predicated on civic involvement—prospective members are drawn from voting registries, so most jury pools are at least peripherally involved with their government. They are participants. They care enough to vote.
This last week, in what has been called one of the most monumental, historic, and important trials in American history, a former president of the United States was convicted—by a juror of his peers—of thirty-four separate felonies. Donald J. Trump is now a convicted criminal, a felon, and is awaiting sentencing which could possibly include jail time. A jury of his peers listened to prosecution and defense make their cases and determined beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty as charged.
The jury, all New Yorkers, had no doubt heard of Mr. Trump and his MAGA brand of politics long before the trial commenced. It would have been hard not to know about ihis involvement with the January 6th Capitol riots or the “stop the steal” campaign that resulted in hundreds of election workers being harassed and threatened by MAGA zealots nationwide. Yet these jurors still vowed to objectively consider the evidence and render a verdict, which they did. After listening to twenty-two witnesses over seven weeks and deliberating for a little over nine hours, the seven men and five women of the jury, including two lawyers, a speech therapist, a salesman, a teacher, and others, considered the evidence and declared Donald Trump guilty.
Doing so required no small bit of courage. During the selection process, one juror opted out of the process, citing pressure from friends and family to know whether she had been picked for the Trump trial. It seems obvious that most of the jurors were aware of (and probably also subject to) these—and worse, pressures. They had to have been aware of the potential fallout that a guilty verdict would bring on themselves and their families, yet they agreed to sit on the jury for the trial of a man famous for his vindictiveness and his willingness to use violence to attain his ends.
The rule of law works and has worked for hundreds of years partly because of these stalwart American citizens, but mostly because we believe in the law. As previously stated, the American system of justice is not perfect, but it strives to judge everyone equally before the law.
Some have argued that Trump was not tried by a jury of his peers. The specious argument for a change of venue argued that the definition of his peers should be citizens who voted for him is absurd, but, in reality, who are Trump’s peers? The short answer is the elite, the one-percenters, those lucky few who do seem to work under a different set of rules in the courtroom. The rich don’t have to resort to public defenders, cannot use numerous motions and other delaying tactics during trial (who could afford it?), or have enough influence to try the case in the court of public opinion? And why do working class criminals have to go to penitentiaries while white collar criminals—like Bernie Madoff—get assigned to country club prisons? And the ex-president certainly acts as if normal laws don’t apply to him. But the one-percenters are only his socioeconomic peers, not his peers before the law.
Trump defied a gag order to stem his running commentary about witnesses and court staff during the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit and then did the same thing during the hush money trial, forcing Judge Marchan to place another gag order on him, which the erstwhile defendant—in all his arrogance—violated ten times, for which the judge fined him about ten thousand dollars. After that, Mr. Trump finally started keeping his mouth shut. Instead—coincidentally—flocks of cooing Republicans, including Speaker Michael Johnson, Lauren Boebert, and Matt Gaetz, showed up at the trial, took turns at the podium, and repeated each and every one of Trump’s accusations against the judge, the court, and the justice system, almost verbatim, constituting yet another end run around the spirit of the law. As I said, it’s not a perfect system, not by a long shot.
Trump’s elite defense team, his seemingly bottomless pockets, and his brazen manipulations of the media gave him every advantage in the courtroom, but all this still didn’t keep him from getting convicted. Despite his accusations that the whole trial was a political witch hunt designed to ruin him and his career and to keep the MAGA Republicans down, he was treated to a fair trial. Despite his veiled threats of violence and the poison pen posts from his endless hordes of MAGA minions, Mr. Trump was convicted. He broke the law and was brought to account. The system has worked—at least so far. There is no doubt that Trump will milk the appeal process for as long as he can. There is no guarantee that he will get anything more than a slap on the wrist during sentencing, yet—up to this point, at least—he has been convicted by a jury of his peers.
But Mr. Trump continues to attack the justice system and the rule of law. He blames his conviction on a justice system that he says has been commandeered by the Democrats. He has been joined in this attack by his fawning MAGA henchmen. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Johnson, and dozens of others have joined Trump in condemning the rule of law and the American justice system. While idiotic attacks by idiotic fools can be dismissed as—well, idiotic, enough citizens take Trump and the MAGA Republicans seriously enough to start a quickening erosion of trust in our courts, due process, and the Bill of Rights. The irony here is that while hugging the flag and talking endlessly about saving America from vermin immigrants and Antifa radicalism, the MAGAs are the ones tearing down our constitutional foundations, brick by brick.
Most Americans have enough common sense–and sensibility–to tell right from wrong. This is why our jury system works. While the one-percenters may get a better shake in court, when put in front of twelve men and women assigned to weigh the evidence, come to a consensus, and wreak justice, they don’t stand any more of a chance than the rest of us.
Justice and fairness are inherently American sensibilities. We need to keep it that way. The justice system can and should be criticized, but it should not be torn down to raise up the tiniest and tinniest of tin gods. There’s just one thing to do—only one thing that would be fair in the case(s) of The United States, The State of Georgia, and The State of New York -v- Donald J. Trump.
Lock him up.