Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan has begun, and while the former president is adamant that it’s a sham, the Times editorial board member Jesse Wegman begs to differ. In this audio essay for “The Opinions,” Wegman argues that Trump’s jury trial is an example of one of the most important features of the American Constitution on display.
Below is a lightly edited transcript of the audio piece. To listen to this piece, click the play button below.
JESSE WEGMAN: I’m Jesse Wegman and I’m a member of the Times editorial board.
[MUSIC BEGINS]
The editorial board is a group of journalists from different areas of expertise and we discuss the issues of the day and we weigh in on the ones that I think are usually most in people’s minds and in the public conversation. I write specifically about the intersection of law and politics, which has been a quiet intersection for the last 10 years or so.
This week we are witnessing something that no American has ever witnessed before, which is the criminal trial of a president of the United States.
It’s important for us to think about it and to consider what it means and how we should conceive of the next few weeks and months going forward up to Election Day.
[MUSIC ENDS]
Donald Trump likes to say, “Oh, I’m being victimized. Nobody’s ever been treated this badly.”
I think it’s important for us to keep in mind and not forget while he’s saying all these things that, in fact, the system is operating as intended. He is getting exactly the guarantees that the Constitution affords to all criminal defendants. He may be acquitted. He may be convicted. But he is ending up getting all the guarantees that the Constitution offers.
[MUSIC BEGINS]
It’s very easy, I think, in this politically polarized moment for us to be cynical and to think, “Oh, you know, everyone operates in their own self-interest. Everyone operates through motivated reasoning to get to the result they want.” I just don’t think that’s the case.
Especially in criminal jury trials. Jurors are instructed from the moment they walk into the courtroom on the significance and the seriousness of the job that they are about to undertake.
One of the things that people are finding out is that when you have a criminal trial, the trial doesn’t start right away. It sometimes takes days or even weeks to seat a criminal jury who are questioned aggressively by both sides. Eventually, we’ll get a group of 12 people to hear this case.
People often like to run down jury service. It’s jury duty. It’s an obligation, and people groan and roll their eyes about it. Forgive me for sounding a little bit Pollyannish, but I think it’s one of the best parts of the American system of government. We put our lives and our liberty in the hands of our fellow citizens. That is something that distinguishes a democratic self-government from other forms of government.
And so what we’re seeing happen right now really is the essence of the American experiment. The founders themselves understood this. As we all know, the Constitution was ratified on the condition that it include a Bill of Rights, and sure enough, one of the 10 amendments that are included in the Bill of Rights is the Seventh Amendment, which does include the right to a civil jury trial. So Americans from the very beginning understood how important it was.
And I think one of the amazing things about juries is that they really are, by and large, incredibly fair, and the people who serve on them, they take it very seriously.
[MUSIC ENDS]
So when Donald Trump or anybody says, “Oh, I’ll never get a fair jury trial in this or that jurisdiction,” I have two thoughts about that. One is, it’s a very offensive thing to say, to suggest that people in one part of the country are somehow less able to be fair, perhaps even less American than people in another part of the country.
This has always been Donald Trump’s stock and trade — to pit people against each other. But the other thing is, it’s just flatly not true. We know from these studies that people who serve on juries take their jobs very seriously, and then afterward, they often say they feel more trusting of the processes that their government uses to determine guilt and innocence than they did before.
This is a uniquely difficult case to seat a jury for, and that’s because Donald Trump is one of the most famous people in the world. Everyone’s been hearing his voice for decades.
I do think, as with any celebrity and especially with this celebrity, it’s extraordinarily hard to find people who don’t already have an opinion on him one way or the other. We saw this week that the first batch of, I think it was 96 jurors who came in for questioning, more than half of them said they just couldn’t do it. They couldn’t bring a fair mind or an unprejudiced mind to the proceedings.
I’m grateful to them for acknowledging that up front. That again shows that our system works so that we’re able to weed out people who would not give either side a fair shake.
[MUSIC BEGINS]
The upshot of all of this carefulness and process in choosing a panel of jurors for a criminal trial is that the ultimate group of jurors who are selected have really gone through the ringer. So I think those people are going to give Donald Trump a fair trial — whatever their ultimate verdict is — he is going to get a fair trial in accord with the guarantees of the Constitution.
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Vishakha Darbha. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Annie-Rose Strasser. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Original music by Carole Sabouraud and Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.