There have been dozens of cases that have been tried in the court of public opinion before they were ever brought in front of a jury.

That’s not a reason to change venue or to continue a trial.

We have been gossiping about the private lives of the people in charge long before the modern news media or social media platforms ever existed.

And those with power and influence have always had the ability to use their platforms to sway us in one direction or another.

So how could anyone hope to get a fair and impartial jury in this case - which very well may be the reigning topic of gossip across the country? Especially considering that the partisan media outlets have already shown us many of the (likely) crucial facts and pieces of evidence in this case, and have cast them in the light of their choosing?

I could answer by saying simply that the Judge will instruct the jurors to only consider the facts and evidence presented in the courtroom; But really - that would be insufficient. We all know once that bell has rung, you can’t un-ring it. Even if someone has the strength of character to be able to put out of *their mind what they’ve heard or seen elsewhere, that feeling they felt when that information was first processed - when they first encountered the media’s presentation of this case - is almost impossible to overcome.

I could also champion the position that the Judge has taken: that whether a potential juror likes Donald Trump doesn’t necessarily imply that the juror will be biased in their determination of Trump’s guilt or innocence, and that each juror should be reminded of this and instructed to decide accordingly. All of that makes sense; But if I were a defense attorney in any other criminal case, I would absolutely expect a judge to strike a potential juror who has openly stated that *they don’t like my client. Credibility is the whole ball-game.

I think we would be better served by asking a different question here - one which accepts all of the former postulates as true: How can we inspire jurors to be fair and impartial in this case, and who would be the most likely candidates to be so inspired?

In my experience, jurors really want to do the right thing - whatever that may be. For the vast most part, they take their jobs very seriously, and they treat their position of power within the justice system with the respect that it deserves.

With that in mind - I think it is possible to create a fair and impartial jury by inspiring those who feel duty-bound to act in accordance with what they believe is right as a juror in a very important case for our country (the “lawful good” concept we nerds understand). Those individuals are the ones with the strength of character to be able to put their own thoughts and feelings aside, and do the job their country requires of them - like a soldier would. Those are the jurors who can be inspired. And an appeal to their character and to their sense of right and wrong might actually allow for the facts and evidence to be considered in a manner which is fair and just.

So perhaps the answer to the question of whether it is possible to select a fair and impartial jury in this case rests upon the ability of an advocate to inspire a potential juror to rise to the occasion - and to honestly believe that there are potential jurors capable of doing so.

The question should be: How can we inspire potential jurors to be fair and impartial during voir dire, and who among those that have been called in would be the most open to being inspired?