Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

After the verdict was read in the defamation trial between writer E Jean Carroll and former president Donald Trump, the judge overseeing the trial suggested the jurors never reveal their identities.

At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

“My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury,” Judge Lewis Kaplan advised them in the courtroom.

Judge Kaplan did not explicitly explain why he was offering the advice, however, previous legal actions against the ex-president have led to threats of violence against both jurors and judges from Trump supporters.

  • @jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    93•5 months ago

    “I fully disagree with both verdicts and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party. Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” [Trump] claimed…

    This mother fucker is so dumb he thinks civil suits are brought about by the federal government. Sometimes I still can’t believe this guy was actually president.

    • @nyctre@lemmy.world
      52•5 months ago

      That’s for his followers, to rile them up and keep them loyal, that’s not really what he believes. Not to say he isn’t a dumb cunt, he is, but this is not an example of that.

        • @Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
          13•5 months ago

          I can already hear the outraged clucking from gaggles of fuckwits as they prepare to empty their retirement savings to send to him in support.

      • @ripcord@lemmy.world
        3•5 months ago

        I agree it’s mostly for his followers, but I think it’s arguable that it’s an example of both. I’m sure he really doesn’t know (or understand the difference) or confused this with another trial, or both.

        • @JoBo@feddit.uk
          0•5 months ago

          He is not as smart as he thinks or would like everyone else to believe but he does know exactly what he is doing here. Truth does not matter to the right and right-wing authoritarians (who are the people who follow narcissistic fascists) just love this schtick.

          This was written in 2006 and every time I read it, I have to check the date wasn’t actually 2016:

          So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby low RWAs, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song? So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the RWAs hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right.

          The Authoritarians

    • @Zink@programming.dev
      5•5 months ago

      I swear in a hundred years there will be arguments in every history class about whether his entire political career was even real or some kind of parable to frighten young people into voting.

      • @jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3•5 months ago

        About 20 years ago, I used to work with an older dude who was just on the verge of retirement. That guy hated Nixon. He would occasionally go on rants about how much of a piece of shit ol’ Tricky Dick was. But at the time, Nixon was 30 years removed from office, and all that shit happened before I was born. So I just kind of blew it off as an over-exaggeration of this one dude.

        But yeah, in about 25-30 years, we’ll be talking to kids in their 20s trying to explain the complete and utter shit-stain that was Donald Trump. And they’ll humor us, but mostly they’ll just be thinking “I’m sure it wasn’t that bad. The guy was elected president after all.”