That is why we have a jury selection process to weed out those people.
That's impossible when your average person consumes media which encourages them to think this way.
Besides, that argument cuts both ways. Just as there are people who would disregard any rational argument to convict him, there are those who would do the same to acquit him.
I'll admit that this is true.
So even if there was not a fair juror on the bench, the statistical odds were still in Trump’s favor.
I doubt this. Biden won NYC with 76% of the vote in 2020, compared to 79% for Hillary Clinton in 2016. This would suggest Trump could get 3 favorable (starting out with some degree of pro-Trump bias) jurors if selected at random, assuming that he simply didn't, as small samples deviate from strict statistical likelihoods more readily.
However, this doesn't tell the whole story. Juries strive for diversity. Not political diversity, but diversity of physical characteristics and perhaps religion. This matters; almost 90% of black voters, 65% of Latino voters, 61% of "Asian" voters, and almost 60% of female voters voted for Biden in 2020. As did 69% of "other" religious affiliation and 65% of "no religious affiliation" voters. If, on the jury, diversity required white jurors, they could be white women. Or if diversity required male jurors, they could be black men. And this is assuming there was no push for, say, queer jurors in Trump's trial.
In any case it's easy to see how diversity targets can overpower the result you'd get from sheer random sampling. And of course, while Trump's attorneys could object to a juror with anti-Trump social media posts, they wouldn't dare object to a jury being too diverse. The optics would be unacceptable, even though someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of statistics could tell you this is in fact relevant to establishing the biases of the final jury tasked with conducting an inescapably political trial of an inescapably political figure.
Finally, if you had, say, one or two pro-Trump jurors but they weren't confident about their decision, they could be pressured by the remaining 10 or 11 to not go against the group and throw a wrench in the trial.
But seriously, you really need to set that aside. You focus on a jury whom you know absolutely nothing about because you have no argument defending his conduct.
Fair, I suppose. Typing in "Trump jury" gave me nothing on who those people are. But that lack of info empowers me to question its reliability just as much as it does you to assume its reliability. Any speculation is fair speculation in a zero-information game, especially when there were such incredibly powerful incentives to fix the trial to whatever extent possible.
the fault here lies on anyone that’s not Trump it would be his attorneys. They gave the jury absolutely nothing to work with.
This article suggests you may be right.
