News
What will life look like for jurors after the Trump trial? : Consider This from NPR
The 12 jurors who served on former President Trump’s hush money trial can choose whether or not to remain anonymous.
Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Getty Images

The 12 jurors who served on former President Trump’s hush money trial can choose whether or not to remain anonymous.
Getty Images
In the wake of Trump’s guilty conviction in a Manhattan court, many players involved have expressed their own reactions to the verdict.
Here’s how Trump himself said it: “It’s my honor to be doing this. It really is. It’s a very unpleasant thing, to be honest. But it’s a great, great honor.”
And there are others who might share that sentiment, namely the 12 New Yorkers who voted to convict the former president of 34 counts of falsified business records.
Their identities were not disclosed publicly in an effort to protect their privacy.
Trump hasn’t directly attacked the jury. But he did imply that the pool, selected from democratically-leaning Manhattan, was biased against him, complaining that they, “Wouldn’t give us a venue change,” in favor of a district that he had higher approval ratings in during elections.
And his followers online have taken it upon themselves to threaten jurors with everything from doxxing to death threats.
You’re reading the Consider This newsletter, which unpacks one major news story each day. Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox, and listen to more from the Consider This podcast.
Earning the ire of Trump’s fans.
There are plenty of Americans in public-facing roles who have been forced to deal with the repercussions of getting on Trump’s bad side.
Like Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who removed Trump from the Republican presidential primary ballot – which she said state law required her to do.
Eventually that decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. But before that happened, Bellows told NPR her house was swatted, or targeted by a hoax 911 call.
“I stand by doing my job, but the response, the threats of violence and threatening communications, have been unacceptable,” she said.
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who first brought the charges against Trump in this trial, had a letter filled with death threats and white powder addressed to him in an envelope last year, among hundreds of other threats against his life since publicly embarking on taking Trump to court.
“A stressful and difficult task”
Those are the words judge Juan Merchan used to thank the jurors for their service throughout Trump’s hush money trial.
Now that it’s all over, will the jurors reveal their identities, get exposed by someone else or just fade back into the fabric of civilian life? And if they speak, what might they say?
Social psychologist and jury consultant Julie Blackman joined Consider This host Ari Shapiro to explore what could be next for these inadvertently influential folks.
Blackman says the transition back to normal life might take the jurors a minute, due to the demands of serving on the jury.
“They were instructed by the court at the beginning of the trial, and throughout the trial, to stay off the internet, to avoid any information that’s relevant to the trial at hand,” she explained.
“And so one of the things you would expect they would be doing at this point, assuming that they’d followed that instruction, is checking to see what was happening during the course of the trial to try to reestablish themselves in a sense and in the world of news about this case.”
And on whether they should reveal their identities to the world?
“I mean, in some respects, I’m very eager to hear from the jurors, in particular because Trump has derided the process. He’s talked about it as rigged. And the ultimate proof that it was not, is hearing from jurors who say, ‘I was there. I was in the room, and I’m willing to kind of pierce the black box of juror deliberations to describe our process and to say that we were fair.’”
Blackman expects that during this time, the jurors are weighing the risks and possible benefits of coming forward. Including the possibility of doxxing.
Want to know more about what they might experience, or if their identities are at risk of being revealed? Listen to the full episode of Consider This by clicking the play button at the top of the page.
This episode was produced by Kathryn Fink, Connor Donevan and Erika Ryan, with audio engineering by Tiffany Vera Castro. It was edited by Patrick Jeranwattanon and Jeanette Woods. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.
News
Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP
The Supreme Court
Win McNamee/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits.
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced.
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor said that if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.”
Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow. Earlier last month the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map. California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district. Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
News
Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.
News
US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets
The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.
“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.
“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.
In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.
“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.
Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.
This story has been updated.
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts5 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
News1 week agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers