Trump's Trials - Consider This: How do you select an impartial jury when your client is famous?

Episode Date: April 14, 2024

For this episode of Trump's Trials, we hand the mic over to Consider This.On Monday, former President Donald Trump will enter a Manhattan courtroom for his first criminal trial. But before a verdict can be rendered a jury must be selected. And for Trump's legal team that is going to be a challenge. A small number of attorneys have faced a similar challenge — how do you select an impartial jury when your client is famous? Host Scott Detrow speaks with attorney Camille Vasquez for insight into the art of jury selection in such a case. She represented Johnny Depp in his defamation suit against his ex-wife Amber Heard. Topics include: - Jury selection- Jury questionnaire- Questioning potential jurors- What to look for in a juror Follow the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify for new episodes each Saturday.Sign up for sponsor-free episodes and support NPR's political journalism at plus.npr.org/trumpstrials.Email the show at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

It's Trump's Trials from NPR. I'm Scott Detro. Tomorrow, Donald Trump's first criminal trial gets underway in New York. The last episode in our feed previews this trial, but today we are going to share an episode of another podcast I co-host, Consider This. And this episode focuses in on a key factor in this upcoming case, how a jury will be selected. We the jury and find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime. We the jury in the above entitled matter as to count one, find the defendant guilty. As to the charge of first degree murder, we the jury find the defendant not guilty. Those are the verdicts from the O.J. Simpson, Derek Chauvin, and Casey Anthony murder trials.

All three cases in different ways captivated the country. Millions of people watched the trials unfold and millions tuned in as a jury of the defendant's peers decided their fate. Tomorrow marks the beginning of another case that is sure to grab the nation's attention and another trial where the idea of a jury of peers can be hard to get your head around because the defendant is one of the most famous people in the world, former President Donald Trump. Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying records related to checks

used to pay adult film star Stormy Daniels. But before we can hear opening arguments, lawyers for both sides get to select the jury. You're trying to get rid of the jurors who will ruin your case and will not be receptive to your arguments. That's jury expert Adam Schlaedt. He's a professor at Fordham Law School.

On Monday, hundreds of New Yorkers will file into a Manhattan courtroom. They fill out a questionnaire that asks typical questions like, what do you do for a living? What's your educational background? And they'll answer more case-specific questions like, have you volunteered for the Trump campaign? Have you attended a Trump rally or have you attended an anti-Trump rally or ever volunteered for an anti-Trump group? But some questions are off the table. The judge has not allowed those explicit questions about people's political views.

But he also acknowledges that one's political views can be pretty easily gleaned from whether you listen to this radio station or that radio station, watch MSNBC or Fox News. Each side does get 10 preemptory challenges that can strike potential jurors from the list and the judge can also strike any juror he feels wouldn't be a good fit. But one thing that may surprise you about the process? As long as you can be fair and you can assure the court that you can be fair, liking or not liking Donald Trump does not disqualify you from being on this jury.

And that's unusual. In a typical case, if a potential juror voices a negative opinion about the defendant, they'd be dismissed. But in this case, because everybody knows the defendant and everybody has an opinion about the defendant and everyone's heard the defendant speak, that in and of itself is not a disqualification because then you'll be left with nobody. And that's maybe the biggest challenge facing Trump's legal team. I think there's a real and legitimate fear that someone will say, I can be totally fair.

I have no strong feelings about Donald Trump. You're really looking for the people who may be lying and undercover trying to convict your client. Consider this. How do you approach a trial by jury when your client is famous and the media is closely watching every move of the case? Few lawyers have been in that position. When we come back we'll speak to one who was. From NPR, I'm Scott Detro. This message comes from NPR sponsor Organic Valley, a co-op of small organic family farms. Farmer Tyler Webb shares why caring for his land has always been a priority.

I'd like to contribute to my community an array of ecosystem services beyond just milk. Building topsoil and holding onto water and supporting wildlife to build that resilience that will support generations to come. Discover Organic Valley Dairy at ov.coop slash ethically sourced. This is my voice. I can tell you a lot about me. And I'm not changing it for anyone.

In NPR's Black Stories, Black Truths, you'll find a collection of NPR episodes centered on Black experiences. Search NPR Black Stories, Black Truths, wherever you get your pocketness. It's Consider This from NPR. Tomorrow, former president Donald Trump's legal team faces a major challenge—selecting a jury they hope will acquit their client. And that won't be an easy task because Trump is arguably one of the most famous men in the world. Attorney Camille Vasquez has been in a somewhat similar position. In 2022, she represented actor Johnny Depp in a defamation case he brought against his

ex-wife Amber Heard. It does need to be said that Johnny Depp's case and Donald Trump's cases are very, very different. One of the many key distinctions is that Trump's is a criminal trial and Depp's was a civil trial. These are both cases centering around extremely famous men. There's a lot of media attention in both of them, and amid all of that, you have to select an impartial jury.

So I started by asking Vasquez how she and her team approached jury selection for the Depp case given that situation. So we went about it by first and foremost hiring a jury consultant. And I think that was instrumental in helping us narrow the perfect juror that we were looking for and the ones that we really didn't want on our jury. And helping us identify some of the characteristics that each of those jurors, potential jurors, would exhibit. Can you just tell us a little more

about what a juror consultant does? Is this coming up with a hypothetical ideal juror, or is this somebody who's with you looking at the jury pool and trying to get a sense of what these jurors are like as they come through? They can do both jobs. In our case, she was not only present get a sense of what these jurors are like as they come through? They can do both jobs. In our case, she was not only present while we were selecting the jury, but she also did

a lot of research and strategized with us about the type of jurors that we were looking for, the ones that we were not looking for. Can you tell us just a general sense of the types that you were looking for in your particular case? The analogy I like to use is like the perfect dinner guests. So you're going to have different people. You're going to have someone that's going to be the leader and you're going to have people that are followers and you need to have the right balance of that. So the leaders that we were looking for were going to be open-minded. They weren't going to know much about the story

between our client and misheard. They obviously would have known who Johnny Depp was, but we weren't necessarily looking for big fans of Johnny Depp, and we knew that those type of jurors were going to be struck by the other side. So we were just looking for people that were open-minded, but exhibited leadership capabilities and that were intelligent enough to be able to understand defamation law explained to them. That is a lot of

different characteristics that you're looking for. So then you get to the selection process. You have this big room full of potential jurors, everyone fills out a questionnaire. They're brought before the judge and lawyers to answer questions about that questionnaire. How do you get all of those characteristics from the information you have in front of you? So we've pre-identified certain people in the pool, but you're right, it's a big room of over 100 people.

And it is completely luck of the draw who you're going to draw So the first 16 get filled into the jury box and then the process starts where you Have questions in our case for example in Virginia We we had pre screened questions the judge had approved each side could ask and You really shouldn't deviate too far from those questions because those had been approved blessed by the court. And then it's my job as the lawyer for Mr. Depp to be able to establish a rapport with the individual potential jurors.

And it's really the first impression that they're going to get of you, of your client, and the case. So it's about establishing rapport and getting them to open up because it's an uncomfortable process where you have everyone looking at you and you have people taking notes. So for the jury, it's really uncomfortable and awkward. And so you want to get them to open up. You want them to talk about things that will show you the characteristics that we're looking for. Are they more of a leader?

Are they less of a leader? Are they more of a follower? Do they know a lot about the case? Do they really want to be on this jury? Are they trying to hide that? Or do they want nothing to do with this? And they're just desperately trying to get out of jury duty. Those are all the things that we try to identify by building a rapport.

And how much of that then on your end and your team's end is that gut feeling versus hard data that you're using to assess this is somebody we want, this is somebody we want to strike? I think it's really a bit of both. You have to trust your gut. And I think good trial lawyers have great guts that they trust because you have to be able to pivot. A lot of it is not like gambling, but you're looking at the potential jury in front of

you. And you're also looking at who's coming up next, who's on the bench that may fill in and is that person potentially worse for you than the people that you have in front of you. I remember before we said, okay, yes, we're good with these, I think it was 12 people, five were going to be alternates. I just remember sitting with my jury consultant and looking at the list and looking at the be alternates. didn't know. We didn't know enough about them or they hadn't opened up enough, but the people that were on the bench we were concerned about. And so we said, yes, we're going to go with this jury.

I'm trying to understand because I think, you know, bias going into the case, preformed opinions going to the case is going to be pretty, pretty central to a Donald Trump jury. I think it's fair to say. What were the kind of questions that you asked and what were the kind of things you were looking for to get a sense in your case of is this a juror who knows a lot about Johnny Depp? Is this a juror who knows a lot about the backstory here? Open-ended questions. It was getting them to talk because we knew if they spoke and they gave us details that Really only die-hard fans would know or people that really had studied the case Then we would have an indication as to whether or not this person was somebody that was following closely or not So a lot of open-ended questions

What do you know about Johnny Depp? What do you know about legal issues that he's been facing for the last five or six years at that point? How many of his movies have you seen? Would you consider yourself a fan? It was those type of questions to try to get them to open up. Same, by the way, on the other side, because we were also dealing with a celebrity on the other side. So, same questions for amber heard

To understand how much they knew about her if you were working on the trump defense team How much would you focus on? politics Versus other broader factors. I probably would focus on politics I wouldn't say it's the the only thing I would focus on, but I think because of who he is, the former president, the Republican nominee, it's an important factor that you have to know. And you are in a liberal state in New York. So obviously, you're going to assume that a lot of the political leanings of the potential

jurors are going to be more liberal. I think you have to understand, though, whether or not their political leanings of the potential jurors are going to be more liberal. I think you have to understand though whether or not their political leanings are going to affect their ability to listen to evidence that in an impartial way and really be open-minded. So if I was on the Trump defense team, that would be critical to our analysis. How often are you and other lawyers trying to get a sense of how a trial is playing with a jury as it goes on? What are you looking for day to day in the trial in terms of is this working? Are we making our case?

Are we struggling? I mean, it's an everyday, every moment process. As trial lawyers, even if it's not me, myself, that's looking at the jury, we always have somebody that's looking at the jury, trying to see what's affecting them and in what manner it's affecting them. It's crucially important to try to understand. There was a moment during my cross-examination, I misheard, where I had two jurors actually physically turn away from her and just lean their bodies towards me.

And I thought to myself, I had them in that moment. And as a trial lawyer during cross-examination, you want that. You want the jury paying attention to your questions because you are telling the story through your questions during cross-examination, you want that. You want the jury paying attention to your questions because you are telling the story through your questions during cross-examination. You don't want them paying attention to the witness and, you know, hanging off every word. The questions are really what's important during a cross-examination. The opposite of that is during a direct examination, you want the jury positioned towards the witness. You want them listening to the responses.

The questions are really there just to guide the story and to guide the witness. But it's the witnesses' answers that matter. So when Mr. Depp was testifying, we wanted the jury completely captured by him. We wanted them to be paying attention to him and his words. And he's a captivating person. And he had everyone in that courtroom listening to him. We talked before about politics being, you know, a high profile factor here.

What else would you want to know about the jury for a case like this Trump case that is going forward? And what else would you have the biggest questions about as the case progressed? I think one of the biggest questions I would have besides politics is how much they know about the other Trump trials whether it's civil or criminal. Because I do think that will actually be an even bigger problem for the Trump defense team to contend with. The reason I say that is because the moral litigation that a claimant or a plaintiff

or defendant is involved in, there's just a stigma that attaches. If the potential juror has been really closely following every single legal case that former President Trump has been involved in, I do think that could be problematic potentially for the defense. Do you think this is an easy case or a hard case for a jury? Because on one hand, it's extramarital affairs and payoffs seems relatively straightforward to grasp. On the other hand, it's campaign finance and business filings,

which is pretty complicated. It is complicated. I don't think it's an finance and business filings, which is pretty complicated. It is complicated. I don't think it's an easy case for a jury to deal with. It's just not going to be. The implications of their decision are huge and they know that. So it's not an easy case, but I hope that they find a jury for both sides, right? That is impartial and will listen to admissible evidence in an open-minded way so that they can come to the right decision. Because that's what the justice system is all about, is arriving at the right decision without influences that really have no place in a court of law. That's attorney Camille Vasquez, partner at the Brown Rudnick law firm and the lawyer for Johnny Depp in that defamation case against Amber Heard.

Thank you so much. Thank you. This episode was produced by Tyler Bartlum and was edited by Adam Rainey. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detro. In this country, some truths aren't self-evident. In NPR's Black Stories, Black Truths, the collection of stories is wide-ranging and real as the people who tell them,

we celebrate the Black experience for all its soul and richness. Search NPR Black Stories Black Truths wherever you get podcasts. It's a high stakes election year, so it's not enough to just follow along. You need to understand what's happening so you are fully informed come November. Every weekday on the NPR Politics Podcast, our political reporters break down important stories and backstories from the campaign trail so you understand why it matters to you. Listen to the NPR Politics Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Black perspectives haven't always been centered in the telling of America's story.

Now we're taking center stage. Introducing NPR's Black Stories, Black Truths, a collection of black-led stories from NPR's podcasts. Search NPR Black Stories, Black Truths wherever you get your podcasts.