Posted on 06/22/2017 9:33:52 AM PDT by jazusamo
Potential jurors for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s court-martial in October may be forced to tell lawyers if they voted for President Trump.
Comments made by Mr. Trump during his 2016 Republican campaign for the White House have influenced one of the most high-profile, court-martial cases in U.S. Army history. Lawyers for Sgt. Bergdahl, the soldier who left his post in Afghanistan in June 2009, have a private 41-question survey for a Fort Bragg judge to consider. One of 17 questions objected to by prosecutors involves support for Mr. Trump’s campaign.
“The principal issue has to do with ensuring we are able to identify people who have been nominated to be on the court-martial panel — the jury — who are not in a position to render an impartial judgment,” Eugene Fidell, Sgt. Bergdahl’s lead attorney, said Wednesday during a pretrial hearing, Stars and Stripes reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Fair question? It highlites the pink elephant in our country : liberals believe it is OK to violate any law you dont like.
They ought to fry this guy.
....It’s a fair question for jury voir dire...
Is a potential juror disqualified because they have obligations to the Commander in Chief or have saluted him?
And a fair answer is: none of your damn business!
It is a secret ballot therefore I can decline to answer
>The panel will be Army personnel, not civilians.
If that be so then they may have difficulty finding non Trump voters.
I had the same thought. :)
Their vote wouldn’t have counted anyway. My Husband always voted absentee but he knew his vote would never be counted. And that is how the Dems wanted it.
Not unless they ask if they voted for Clinton. Try this with me. See what happens.
Since it’s a private vote situation....every single juror can grin and voice their support of Hillary...to put a cherry on this ‘cake’. The news folks would hype up they were all Hillary-voters and still voted to convict Bergdahl.
I can’t imagine the Army allowing this question to occur. There’s not a single order within the UMCJ that mandates you declare to someone who you voted for, and to allow this trend to start up...would only collapse the entire leadership chain.
I couldn’t agree more.
To allow this precedent to be set would open a real can of worms.
Why is he not being charged with aiding and abetting the enemy?
Its a disgrace to hard working Non Commissioned Officers to see this traitor wearing Sergeant stripes or even in uniform. And it’s nobodies damned business how someone votes. It’s not called a secret ballot for no reason.
This traitor is overdue for his date with the gallows.
Obama knew he was trading terrorists for a traitor.
Ask the jurors if they voted for bammy.
Bergdahl and Hasan should be rotting in a grave that we can all piss on by now. What a disgrace.
Hmmmmm....Do you have a Law degree from “Tarjay” (Target) by any chance?
You need to ask Bergdahl’s lawyers that.
They will try this if any illegal, refugee, Muslim, gay, etc., goes to trial for any crime.
I don't agree. Questions for voir dire should be far more limited in scope. Trying to infer bias from self-reported voting on what is supposed to be a secret ballot is inappropriate.
Can the lawyers ask this? I hope someone here will have a detailed answer. I’ve wondered about this sort of question if I’m called for (civilian) jury duty. My inclination: Answer that my registration and whether I voted in a given election are matters of public record. But saying how I voted is a violation of my right to a secret ballot. I think it is an illegal question and I’d like to consult with my own lawyer before answering or refusing to answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.