[desertsolitaire]

I wonder if the two lawyers on the jury have a moral or legal (or both) obligation to maintain professional legal conduct on their part, even though they are acting as jurors here?

[Sidebar Moderator]

As lawyers, they’re officers of the court, so that’s one thing to consider.

[Candor7]

THe two lawyers have a duty to see that justice is done.They took an oath when they were admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the Saate of New York:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the
constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of
[attorney and counselor-at-law], according to the best of my ability”

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/litigation/Oaths.pdf

They both know that this is a witch hunt case. The question is whether they have the balls to influence the jury, or hold out for a hung jury.Or they both coujld be Dem plants.

[Reno89519]

I’ve been wondering about those two attorneys as well. How did they manage to get on the jury? Can they not see the clarity of the problem here? No underlying crime, no jurisdiction, and it is past statute of limitation. Lastly, the feds refused to prosecute. Can they honestly convict and what does it say about their intelligence and integrity as attorneys?

[DeplorablePaul]

If the lawyers on the jury don’t convict Trump, they’d become outcasts. Peers and family would condemn them to hell. I’m quite sure they are devoid of ethics or character. Trump can’t get a fair trial in NYC.

[4Runner]

I wonder if the two lawyers on the jury have a moral or legal (or both) obligation to maintain professional legal conduct on their part, even though they are acting as jurors here?

I always thought attorneys were automatically exempted from jury duty because as bar members they are considered "officers of the court". Has that changed?