06-12-2024, 01:10 PM
(06-12-2024, 01:02 PM)CJD Wrote: If 86.8% of people in the area voted for Biden over Trump, wouldn't that mean that, given a random sample of 12 people from that area, between 1 and 2 people would be part of that 13.2% that did not vote for Biden over Trump? And that's before the selection process occurs, which probably eliminated a fair amount of that 86.8%.
I get that it's a highly blue area, but highly blue does not mean 100%. It is statistically likely that at least 1 to 2, and potentially even more, of the people on that jury were Trump supporters and even they agreed that he committed these crimes.
Or, Trump's lawyers totally screwed up the selection process and allowed 12 dyed in blue liberals onto the jury.
I took statistics in college, but I am no expert. That said, I don't think you're correct here. Every time you pull a person for jury duty there's a 87% chance they're a Biden voter. That chance doesn't decrease for the next pick, it stays exactly the same. So, statistically, it would be very easy for the twelve jurors to all be Biden voters. There's essentially a one in ten chance that the person voted for Trump, Meaning out of thirty people in the jury pool three would be Trump voters. The DA gets more than three preemptory challenges. Those three would be the first to go.
Your statistics would be workable if the jurors were chosen completely at random. They aren't.
I also must reiterate that I'm not alleging this happened here, just that it is very plausible and that Trump has a legitimate argument that it would be very difficult to impossible for him to get a fair trial in that area. As I said, the same argument in reverse could be made for a deep red area. He's so polarizing that I think finding twelve impartial jurors would be exceedingly difficult even in a 50/50 area.
