Attorneys Say Trump Needs Access to Jury Information to Avoid Prejudice

Former President Donald Trump speaks in the library at his home, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla., on March 4, 2024. Alon Skuy/Getty Images

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and attorneys for former President Donald Trump agree that juror identities in the upcoming trial this month should be kept anonymous.

But they disagree over whether these identities should be “protected” from President Trump.

“President Trump does believe that a protective order ... is appropriate. The basis for such an order, however, is the extremely prejudicial pretrial media attention associated with this case, and not the People’s meritless, counterfactual, and unconstitutional efforts to take away President Trump’s protected speech regarding matters of public concern,” the March 4 response reads.

In a court filing,  prosecutors asked the court to warn President Trump that his speech and conduct, if it “threatens the safety and integrity of the jury,” could lose him access to juror information.

The district attorney had also requested a gag order on President Trump that would prohibit him from making statements about several groups of people involved in the case, including high-profile, key witnesses but excluding Mr. Bragg himself.

Defense attorneys argued that the prosecutors have presented a narrative without legal basis that paints President Trump’s right to personal and political speech as a “risk,” and that their basis for a protective order could actually prejudice jurors.

They argued that as the presumptive Republican nominee, and at the height of the campaign season, President Trump’s speech deserves “heightened protection.“

The defense attorneys further argue that the court should issue a protective order to limit disclosure of jury information, but that if jurors raise questions about protective measures they should be provided “a neutral explanation that does not implicate President Trump and emphasizes the presumption of innocence.”

Historically, courts have acknowledged that using an anonymous jury can prejudice them against the defendant.

“The Court should take precautions to minimize potential prejudice to President Trump resulting from the protective order,” his attorneys said.

In arguing for a gag order, prosecutors cited at length President Trump’s social media posts, public statements, and even books he authored. However, none of these statements referenced jurors in any of President Trump’s cases.

“The People do not identify a single example where President Trump mentioned—let alone attacked or harassed—any juror by name,” the response reads. “The only two examples the People cite where President Trump referenced a juror—not by name—were instances where those jurors discussed their work as jurors with the media.”

These two jurors had publicly identified themselves and given multiple media interviews, and President Trump was far from the only person who commented on their actions.

“Various legal scholars and observers leveled similar criticisms against this juror as a result of her public statements,” the attorneys argued, referring to Emily Kohrs, forewoman of the Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury that issued a racketeering indictment against President Trump and 18 others.

In that Georgia case, information about the grand jurors was later leaked, which Manhattan prosecutors mentioned in their court filing without being able to connect it to President Trump.

“The People also make much of the fact that the trial judge in Georgia entered ‘an order restricting jurors’ identities,’” the response reads. “President Trump was not referenced in that Order, let alone the basis for it.”

Historic Case

Trial has been set for March 25. This marks the first time an American president, sitting or former, has been brought to court for criminal prosecution.

President Trump was indicted last April on 34 counts of mishandling business documents. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In the indictment, Mr. Bragg alleges that President Trump interfered with the 2016 election by having an associate of his pay to cover up an alleged affair, and then paid back the associate, Michael Cohen, through his Trump Organization business.

However, the charges themselves are “falsifying business records” and do not deal with the election.

President Trump has since been indicted a total of four times since he announced his reelection campaign, and legal experts have criticized the Manhattan case the most of all.

“Here, there was no crime. They had to make it up,” said law professor Alan Dershowitz, who had represented President Trump during his impeachment. Mr. Dershowitz has criticized all of the cases against President Trump and argued that the Manhattan case was legally the weakest.

“They had to combine a non-existent state misdemeanor, which is beyond the statute of limitations to a federal felony, which was not prosecuted by the federal government, also beyond the statute of limitations,” he said last year when news of the indictment broke.

“That just isn’t the way American justice works and everybody should protest this.”