[Tom Williams, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

Experts Agree With Majority That Trump Cannot Get A Fair Trial

Danny Cevallos, an MSNBC legal analyst, shocked a group of liberal panelists on Monday when he predicted that Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump might collapse even before it begins. He said that those watching the case go ahead should be prepared for a mistrial.

Bragg’s case has been called one of the weakest by liberals and conservatives alike, and now the liberal DA is facing the problem of finding an impartial jury.

Trump is currently on trial for 34 felony counts pertaining to a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence regarding an alleged affair, and all 12 jurors were selected on Thursday. Two jurors were initially excused before the full jury was seated, which Cevallos on “Morning Joe” said indicates the possibility of forthcoming issues that could cause a mistrial, according to The Daily Caller.

“So here’s the thing. I think juror attrition could be a real problem in this case,” Cevallos said. “I mean, just do the math. Last week, we lost two jurors before the trial even began. When you think about it, you do lose jurors during a trial. I’ve lost them. They fell asleep. They don’t follow the judge’s orders. But you don’t normally lose a juror after the moment they’re selected and between that and the time that the trial actually begins because, ordinarily, nothing happens during that time.”

“But in this case, you have an example where a juror goes home, they start really thinking about their duty and what this is going to entail, and they come back and say, ‘you know what, I don’t want to do this anymore.’ By the way, that’s also something that happens from time to time,” Cevallos added. “I’ve had it in organized crime cases. You have jurors who come up to the judge and say, ‘I’ll do anything. Please, I do not want to be on this jury. I’m afraid.’ That’s not obviously the same situation here, but you do have jurors who are going to have second thoughts.”

“And the question becomes, will six alternates be enough to cover this trial?” he asked. “I hope so. But if what we’ve seen so far, if that’s the rate of loss of jurors, two before we even start the trial, that could be a real problem and that could lead to a mistrial, which in, I think, the defense’s view, is a win.”

Last week, a juror was dismissed from the trial because she changed her mind after being chosen, saying that she did not think she could be fair to Donald Trump. 

Most of America agrees with her. 

The Washington Examiner noted, “Whether you see it as a “witch hunt” or not, a majority of likely voters do not believe that former President Donald Trump will get a “fair” hearing in the “hush money” trial opening in New York on Monday.

Just hours before opening arguments were set to begin in the case featuring former porn star and dancer Stormy Daniels, Rasmussen Reports shared with Secrets its finding that 51% do not believe Trump will get a “fair trial.” Among those, 31% said that a fair trial is “not at all likely.”

Just 42% see a fair trial as likely, according to Rasmussen.

In addition to asking about the chances of getting a fair trial in the coming weeks, Rasmussen also asked voters if they believed that Trump was being persecuted.

By a margin of 54%-40%, most voters agree with Trump that he is the target of a “witch hunt.” The partisan divide was sharp, though the poll weighs Democrats heavier than Republicans: 35% to 33%.”

Two former federal prosecutors, writing in The Hill, explained why it will be nearly impossible for Trump, one of the most famous people to ever run for president, to get a fair trial because the jury understands that their decision will impact the election. 

“A convenient way to define bias in a juror is to ask, “Do you have a personal motivation to convict or acquit the defendant?” Jurors who have an actual interest in the outcome of a trial are, by law, required to be struck from a jury pool. Legally, this isn’t a high bar. Any personal interest in the outcome of the case is disqualifying. 

This is precisely why — no matter how many hundreds of prospective jurors are questioned, what news sources they read, where they live, where they work or how many times they promise to be fair — Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, cannot get a fair jury. 

It is preposterous to suggest that any American citizen called as a prospective juror could be “unbiased” when it comes to Trump — the presidential leading candidate, according to polls — mere months away from the election. It is indisputable that the lives of all Americans will be affected by whoever is elected as the next president. According to the polling, if Trump were convicted in the Manhattan hush money case, his chances of winning the election would go down. 

To hold this trial in the lead up to a presidential election is, by definition, election interference. The outcome will affect the election and the jurors deciding the case — whether they admit it or not — have an interest in its outcome, one way or the other, that is unconnected to the evidence presented in court.”

This article originally appeared on New Conservative Post. Used with Permission.

[Read More: Obama Adviser Arrested For Crimes Related To Children]