LOS ANGELES — No one mentioned the party affiliation of U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry on Wednesday as a judge questioned prospective jurors on their ability to be fair to the nine-term Republican congressman from Nebraska.
But the elephant in the room, so to speak, eventually bared its head.
Juror No. 24 walked up to the microphone where jurors were answering such basic questions as whether they ever had committed a crime or been a victim of one, ever served on a jury and whether they had any political biases.
The property manager from Ohio said he didn’t have any animus specifically toward Republicans or Democrats.
“Just politicians,” the middle-aged white man said. “They’re hard to trust. You’ve got the one party — and you’ve got the spineless party on the other side. ... They spend their whole careers not telling the truth.”
People are also reading…
He paused, then turned toward Fortenberry, seated next to his attorneys on the right side of the courtroom.
“No offense,” the potential juror said, nodding at the congressman.
And so it went Wednesday, as the purportedly streamlined jury-selection process — with a judge, not attorneys, asking questions — nonetheless ground into the tedium that accompanies virtually every jury selection.
By day’s end, attorneys were scrambling to strike those they didn't want and seat the jury. The trial likely will go into the middle of next week. Opening statements are expected Thursday morning.
Such jury selection isn’t so much a selection as it is an elimination.
Attorneys on both sides winnow down the pool of more than 50 potential jurors until they come up with 12 jurors and a couple of alternates who they don’t think will ruin their chances.
Though his party wasn’t identified to prospective jurors, the Nebraska Republican stands accused of lying to FBI agents and trying to conceal the fact that Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury donated $30,000 to his campaign at a 2016 fundraiser in Los Angeles.
The defense argues that Fortenberry was set up by a 10-minute phone call from an informant — that he didn't know about Chagoury's donation and that he didn’t try to conceal anything.
Fortenberry’s lead attorney, John Littrell, had requested that the entire case be moved to Nebraska, primarily because he feared that Fortenberry wouldn’t get a fair jury in the predominantly Democrat state of California.
U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr., however, kept the trial in California, noting that the fundraiser that was the source of the felony allegations was held in Los Angeles.
Though he kept the case in California, the judge promised to ferret out anyone who couldn’t put aside political biases and decide the case on its merit.
The biggest difference between this California jury and a Nebraska jury wasn’t necessarily ideology. It was demography. While Nebraska juries are typically 90% white, just five of the 12 jurors in this case are white. Ultimately, Fortenberry’s fate will be decided by a jury of three men and nine women — a mix of Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander and white jurors.
Regardless of demographics, most prospective jurors said they didn’t view life through a political lens. A couple of jurors even said they would need definitions of political parties and political terms, just like legal jargon.
The political queries produced plenty of discussion.
Juror No. 21, a Latino business owner who deals in rebuilt truck chassis, declined to say which party he couldn’t stand. “I lean to one side, but I don’t want to disclose that,” he said.
When Blumenfeld tried to drill down to his concern, the man hemmed and hawed and eventually said that “they ask for your money” but never do what they say they’re going to.
Pressed further, he finally blurted his nemesis: Democrats.
Juror No. 29 had a different take. A middle-aged Black woman, she cut to the chase.
“Republicans — I don’t like them,” she said, “because of the recent voter suppression efforts in states across the country.”
Blumenfeld: Would you have a problem if, say, you were told the defendant was a Democrat?
“Maybe, but especially if he was a Republican. I specifically do have a problem with the Republican Party. Sorry, I am who I am.”
Juror 31, an Asian-American engineer, revealed his leanings in a different way. “I will try hard to check my conscious bias.”
What’s your bias? the judge asked.
The juror told the judge he used to watch a certain cable TV station.
“I don’t necessarily do Fox (News) anymore, so you can guess ... my bias,” the juror said.
The one who stole the show had nothing to do with politics.
Juror 19, a 20-something from Calabasas who sells appliances for use on Hollywood sets, disclosed, as required, all the brushes with the law she or her family had had. A sister was arrested for stealing from a Nordstrom. The juror said she was the victim of a hit-and-run.
And as she pushed her blond hair back over her ears, she said she might have gotten a minor-in-possession charge when she was 16.
How do you not know? Blumenfeld asked gently.
“I just smoked a lot of weed when I was younger,” she said with a breathless laugh. “So I don’t remember. The past is in the past. We’re good.”