watch c-span's

>> continues. host: we are joined by ronald sullivan, a criminal professor of law at harvard university -- a professor of law at harvard university. guest: thank you for having me. host: how difficult is it to find partial given that the defendant is a former president. guest: in normal circumstances it is difficult to find an impartial juror come even more difficult in high-profile cases and even more difficult when the defendant is a former president. we have seen the process work in the way it should. the board methodically and

slowly went through the process and so far we have 12. we still have to get the alternates. in all likelihood, in very short order, we will have a jury. host: can you explain what does it mean for the jury to be impartial or at least for them to look up impartial jurors? in this case and it cannot be that you don't know who the defendant is. guest: that is right. i will start by explaining what it is not. an impartial juror does not mean injured or who does not know about the case. it does not mean the juror who has no opinions about the case. click any impartial jury means is a juror who notwithstanding any biases, any predispositions, and prior judgments about the case can put aside those

judgments and render a fair and impartial verdict. that is any impartial juror -- an impartial juror. i had taken 100 or so cases to jury, trial, verdict. if i came across a trooper who did not hear anything about that case, i would be suspicious but juror immediately -- suspicious about that jerome immediately. they do know about the case, they have opinions, but the key is if they can put the opinions aside and render a fair and appropriate. host: talk about the process itself of finding that jury and seating that jury. is there anything unique to new york? guest: every state is different. they each have different customs and court rules and laws with

respect to peddling injury -- paneling a jury. new york is an independent state but it falls within one of the dominant models of jury selection. on one end of the spectrum, gives states that have one juror in a box. the court gets cleared and the lawyers get to question each jibber -- each juror for an unlimited time period. that takes a long time. i tried the and hernandez case, former new england patriot, it took us a month to try that juror -- that jury. you get a really robust questioning section. there are courts where the judge maintains all questions.

lawyers may begin to ask a question or two that is about it. that is the federal system. new york is a hybrid. in new york, while it is not judged dominated, the lawyers get to ask oceans. -- ask questions. they don't get the one-on-one each and every juror. because of that, they're able to pick injury -- take a -- take a read and not go into much longer period -- take a jury -- pick a jury and not take a much longer period. host: cargo -- there are two different causes, one is -- guest: it means the juror is unable to either serve will

provide a fair and impartial verdict. maybe someone has a job that does not pay when you're sitting on the jury and that person simply cannot afford to spend two months on a jury. that person will lose their house for not being able to pay mortgage or rent or utility bills, that is called a hardship. that is a for cause termination a church -- for which a judge will release a juror. maybe somebody has a significant back element and they cannot sit for five straight hours throughout the day or some other infirmary that prevents them from paying close attention. maybe they cannot hear very well and hearing aids don't work. that is another form of hardship

. the other category of for cause is a person uses i am unable to mentor a fair and impartial verdict. maybe someone says i have such deep and abiding views about mr. trump were deep and dividing -- or deep and abiding views about the state of new york where the prosecutor's office that i simply cannot follow the instructions of the judge, i am predisposed to vote one way or another and i am going to do that anyway. that person is excused as well. in that category, you have people with religious objections. some people based on religious training, in and say i cannot do this because my biblical or other traditional teachings are

that i cannot judge and you tell me to sit and judge another person. the violets might bash that violates my religion -- that violates my religion. perfunctory -- you are eligible, you can provide a fair and impartial verdict, but there's a big about you that one of the lawyers says i don't like that person. perfunctory challenges are at the discretion of the lawyers. they can be for almost any reason. it cannot be for a person's race, ethnicity, or gender. there is a supreme court case that says you cannot do that. for almost any other reason, that person looks funny, he gave me a sign i glanced, he looks dishonest.

a lawyer can exercise a strike and kick that juror off of the panel. here is the key. there are a limited number of challenges. if not, that could go on forever. they have 10 each. once that number is reached, if a juror is qualified, that traverses. this is why as you get to the end of the process, goes quickly because there are not any challenges left and for cause is difficult sometimes to make out. guest: we will start taking your calls. you can start calling in now if you have russian about jury selection in the manhattan case with professor ronald sullivan. the numbers for republicans are 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents, 202-748-8002. i wanted to ask you about the jurors that have been seated. two our attorneys -- two are attorneys. they don't work in the criminal field. does that surprise you? what do you think about that? guest: it does surprise me. the will of fong is that you don't want lawyers in your jury. -- the beloved, that you don't want lawyers in your jury. white? -- why? the other jurors might differ to them because they have legal knowledge. sometimes lawyers may not listen to the instructions of the court because they think they already know what the rules are. they think they understand what is behind and the objection and for sort of information enable your -- and the sort of

information a lawyer -- a judge says to consider. legal of thumb -- the rule of the is no lawyers. they are subject to exception. sometimes you think able you might be helpful. you might have a case that has certain technical aspects that you think able your can guide the jewelry in the direction of your client. other times it is a gut feeling. just to give you an example, this was years ago. before i became a professor, i was a public defender. i got a homicide and i learned like most lawyers, no lawyers on the jury. there was this one lawyer who seemed to say the right things and that for your was a recent

graduate of berkeley law school and she worked birkenstocks to court. i thought, i think i can deal with this person. this person will give my client a fair shot. sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. this is the example of fox's use to make determinations about how a juror might vote. there is think about those lawyers that both sides thought the people your could be advantageous to them. host: we have a land set aside for anybody who has had experience as a juror. you can call us 202-748-8003. you can also use the same line for texting us. we will go to calls now. republican in greenfield, indiana. caller: your post -- host proved

my point about jurors. when jurors get disqualified because of some statement they make that they cannot or appear to have some bias toward the defendant, they should be recused. i think the same thing would apply to the judge with some of the statements and past dealings with the trump charges that he has overseen. i think it appears from what we see on tv and some of the statements the judge has made and given his past financial donations to the biden election campaign, the involvement with

his daughter, based on his promise about disqualified a juror -- disqualifying a juror, the judge should be disqualified as well. host: let's get a response. guest: always good to hear from a fellow hoosier. i was born and raised in gary, indiana. the rules with respect to the crucial are different for different judges. and dismissal for cause for a juror. the rules every different. president trump and his team filed were crucial motions for a judge that was denied. the caller makes a very good point about the notion of recusal that exists on two registers for a judge.

whether a judge has an actual conflict such that she should be recused whether a judge has the appearance of a conflict such that a reasonable is an unaided public doesn't have faith in the integrity of the system. these are things the judge considered when making his ruling. the law says you cannot control what you little children do so that is not a factor in his analysis. judges are part of the applicable system so they can make nations. they are not required to be independent politically but the law presumes judges are going to put aside for dispositions based on political affiliations. otherwise, we could not have judges or we would have to

redesign the system where we have amended the judges remain apolitical. you can see the problem. trump -- you cannot say just because you were appointed by trump, you cannot sit on this case. it would cause chaos in the system. we have a system designed to take that into account and presumes judges can behave appropriately unless or until the level of conflict rises to a particular level that it is not in this case. host: supplement, main. -- south portland, maine. guest: -- caller: i am a fan of your work and doing a bit more research of you and your clients over the years. he recalled up to represent --

and the only reason you did that is because you were the dorm provider. how do you feel about that one? guest: a little outside of the topic but i represented mr. weinstein. i believe in the right to counsel. i started my career as a public defender and i believe everybody deserves a right to a lawyer and a right to a competent and effective lawyer. it is up to lawyers like me to represent clients who many deem unpopular. that is our duty as lookers in order to make the system work -- as lawyers in order to make the system work. if we failed to do this, we will see the protections that you and me enjoyed irrigated. because lawyers are not fighting

for the rights of the low and the least among us. these are very important. we have rights like the miranda warnings because someone decided to represent mr. ernesto miranda who by all accounts was not the greatest guy in the world. a lawyer stood up and revisited him nonetheless in his case. because of that, we have protections that protect us from the overreach of the state. host: michael has been a juror in plainfield, illinois. caller: good morning to you and your guest. i have been on two judah was here -- i have been on two juries. i have been informed each time.

where i would like your guest to comment is this system in a lot of respects is fraud because when they do this, ask questions. -- they ask questions. they are under pressure to get this through and panel injury. -- panel jury. i don't think they take a particular the long time to do this. the system is fraud. people are going to be under pressure. they are going to have other things to do. it doesn't pay much money. they are expected to sit in judgment of someone. this is a very technical case, as was the civil case i set on. it was involving in the group

lessons and it was incredibly complicated as to the criteria for transferring things. i think that is what this is going to be, another highly technical case. there are going to be a lot of problems for the juror -- the jury and coming to a fair conclusion. host: what do you think? guest: is the jury system in perfect? -- imperfect? yes. there continues to be a tension -- between expediency and choosing a fair and partial jury. most judges are interested in quickly battling a jury -- quickly paneling a jury. defense counsel is interested in slowing the bus is done to ensure there is a fair jury.

it is an imperfect system. there is any old saying that our criminal legal system is the wo >> from washington, d.c., to across the country. coming up saturday morning, we will talk with the deputy director of the american enterprise institute on policy studies on how to combat student absenteeism that began in the pandemic and continues today.

c-span's washington journal, join the conversation live at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. collects it is the same over the hill. don limited -- don lemon would say that is a man of his prime. >> watching c-span's coverage of the correspondents dinner, live saturday, april 27, with saturday night live week and update cohost as the featured entertainer, as well as president biden, who is expected to give remarks. coverage begins at six kind p.m. eastern