Judge expects arguments to begin Monday

NEW YORK — At 4:34 p.m. Thursday, a jury of 12 citizens was selected to determine the fate of an indicted former president for the first time in American history, a moment that could shape the nation’s political and legal landscapes for generations to come.

The dozen New Yorkers will sit in judgment of Donald Trump, the 45th president turned criminal defendant, who has been accused of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal. If the jurors convict Trump, he could face up to four years in prison, even as he seeks to reclaim the White House as the presumptive Republican nominee.

“We have our jury,” Justice Juan Merchan proclaimed as the 12th juror was added.

He then swore the seven men and five women to an oath that they would render a fair and impartial verdict, which they accepted with sober expressions as Trump stared from the defense table. The jurors could hear opening arguments as soon as Monday.

The selection of the 12 capped a seesaw day in which the judge first excused two people who had been seated earlier in the week, and then hours later replaced them with two new faces and more. The moment was both routine and never before seen, an act performed every day in courthouses around the country, but never for a former president, a symbol and source of the nation’s political divide.

Trump, under the Constitution, is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of his peers. And yet he is peerless, a singular force in U.S. politics who was twice impeached and brought democracy to the brink when he refused to accept his election defeat.

Now, just as he bent the political world to his will, Trump is testing the limits of the U.S. justice system, assailing the integrity of jury and judge alike. His attacks have emboldened his base, and might well resonate more broadly on the campaign trial.

But it will be the 12 men and women of the jury — in Trump’s hometown — who will first decide his fate, before millions more do so at the polls.

The jury’s makeup and the security of its members will be central to the landmark case. Trump claims he cannot receive a fair trial in one of the nation’s most Democratic counties, a place where he is deeply unpopular, though some of the jurors who ultimately landed on the panel praised him.

One man said during the selection that he believed the former president had done some good for the country, adding, “it goes both ways.” Another juror, in a possible first for the country, said he didn’t have an opinion on Trump.

One alternate was also picked before court adjourned. The judge plans to conclude jury selection Friday, when the lawyers will select the remaining five alternates. The long day got off to an inauspicious start as Merchan excused the two jurors, including a woman who had developed concerns about her identity being revealed.

That fear, she added, might compromise her fairness and “decision-making in the courtroom,” which prompted the judge to excuse her.

The precise reason the judge dismissed the other juror was not clear, but prosecutors had raised concerns about the credibility of answers he had given to questions about himself. Asked outside the courthouse whether he believed he should have been dismissed, the man, who declined to give his name, replied, “Nope.”

The dismissals underscored the intense pressure of serving on this particular panel. Jurors are risking their safety and their privacy to sit in judgment of a former commander in chief who is now their fellow citizen, a heavy responsibility that could unnerve even the most seen-it-all New Yorkers.

During jury selection, prospective members are routinely excused by the dozens. And once a trial formally begins, it is not unheard of to lose a juror for reasons such as illness or violating a judge’s order not to read about the proceeding.

But losing two in one day, before opening arguments even began, was unusual — one of many small ways in which this trial will stand apart. The ousters appeared to rankle the judge, who has striven to keep the trial on schedule. He said he thought the woman who declined to serve would have “been a very good juror.”