I don't think I would be put on a jury. I got rejected once because I said police officers lie just like criminals and so I would need more than one police officer's testimony to convict the offender.
I got rejected once because I said assuming something was true even if it was likely to true was not something I was prepared to accept. I wanted some real proof; I am not a supporter of "who do you believe" or "what do you think happened" cases. I would need to feel that the evidence is not just 51% in favor of conviction, but closer to 90% in favor of conviction for a civil crime and 100% in a criminal case.
So, looking a Trump's NY cases. I would have found Trump not guilty in the Carroll case, because it came down to a he said, she said case. Before you convict someone, you need more evidence than that. I am not saying Trump is innocent, I am saying there was not enough evidence to prove to me he is guilty.
In the fraud case, if it were a trial case, I would have had an issue with the finding. Trump may be guilty of a New York process crime. But anything more than a minor misdemeanor and small fine establishes a precedent that violates the Constitution. I would not want a poor person guilty of a similar crime subject to anything other than a small fine, so what justifies a $400 million dollar judgement? What really made this case "stink", is the state of New York was the prosecution, the judge, (no jury), and the beneficiary of the judgement.
In the "hush" money case, until and unless someone proves Trump violated Federal election law in Federal court. I would assume he did not. At which point the case falls apart. So, no way, I would be put on that jury.
In the DC case, until Congress declares January 6th was an insurrection, I don't see the crime. In my mind, something as major as an "insurrection" should be declared as such by Congress, rather the justice system using it as tool against little old ladies that entered the Capitol on January 6th in protest. I would find some of the participants of January 6th, guilty of destruction of federal property, trespassing, and a variety of other crimes typically of a riot. But the less harm done by the individual, the more I would see the act as one of protest, not a riot, and definitely not an insurrection. No way would I support applying a statute designed for Enron cases to a totally unrelated activity. Arguing the President caused the riot, would call for many members of Congress to face similar charges.
On the Georgia case, I simply don't see RICO laws applying to election cases. If Trump violated a specific Georgia law, then pursue that.
On the Florida case, if Trump illegally possessed classified documents after determining whether he was innocent under the Presidential Records Act, I would find him guilty of negligence since the DOJ and FBI seem to treat possession of classified documents as negligence. As a juror I would feel compelled to see this crime, the only "certain" crime in the light it has been viewed in by other Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Secretary of States. I believe equal justice is an important cornerstone of our country.
Being retired, time considerations would not be an issue, nor would personal safety or civic duty. The issue for me is how would I expect the law would be applied to a totally unknown person especially a poor minority.
For decades minorities have not gotten equal justice under the law. Trump for all his flaws is demonstrating how the justice system can abuse its power. Imagine how a poor black would fare, it the justice system went after him. I think Trump made a good start with our reforming our justice system with the First Step Act, but there is still much to fix in our justice system.
