How about just updating what a “jury of peers” should be about? In a case where hthe motivation was supposedly purely political, how can a fair trial be held in a jurisdiction where the “peers” are unabashedly political opponents of the defendant? It’s the Democrats favorite trick, and the elephant in the room when republicans try to bring a Democrat to trial, ie having to try D case in D.C.
Heck, I’d like to randomize the whole thing. Imagine this trial taking place in — let’s spin the wheel — Oh, I guess this trial will take place in Kansas. And the 12 people from Kansas who are chosen for the jury will never see or know the name of the defendant. That shouldn’t matter, right? So the trial comes down to some guy from somewhere who paid his lawyer and claims this as a “legal expense”. So those 12 people from Kansas have to decide is this is a felony and if 120 years in jail is a reasonable penalty to put on this guy, whoever he is.
I bet they’d acquit.
“…updating what a ‘jury of peers’” is exactly what needs to be done.