Jury System

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Maximizing Profits at the Patients’ Expense

      by

      More from our inbox:The Brave Trump JurorsBlack Voters ‘Want to Be Courted’ by DemocratsBetter Than Debates NATo the Editor:Re “Patients Hit With Big Bills While Insurers Reap Fees” (front page, April 7):Chris Hamby’s investigation uncovers the hard truth for patients who receive care from providers outside their insurance network. While most of us try to save out-of-pocket costs by using in-network health professionals and hospitals, it’s not always possible. And there’s no way to determine what we’ll owe until after we get that care — when it’s too late to reconsider based on the costs we’ve incurred.So, it’s more important than ever for the government to swiftly implement an essential element of the No Surprises Act: Providers should have to give patients an advance explanation of benefits so patients can estimate their financial burden before they get treatment, in or out of network.Health price transparency is improving, but it’s outrageous that even two years after the No Surprises Act passed, everyone except the patient knows the price of a procedure or doctor’s visit in advance, leaving patients unpleasantly surprised.Patricia KelmarAlexandria, Va.The writer is senior director of Health Care Campaigns for U.S. PIRG.To the Editor:This is just the latest example of the schemes deployed by insurers to maximize profits by cutting reimbursements to physicians and shifting medically necessary health care costs onto patients.Whether it’s through third-party entities like MultiPlan or using tactics such as narrowing provider networks and restrictive prior authorization policies, insurers have the perverse incentive to boost revenue over offering adequate payment for quality patient care under the guise of “controlling costs.”More and more patients are being forced to decide whether they should forgo treatment because their insurer won’t pay the bill.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How a New Trial for Harvey Weinstein Could Again Test the Legal System

      by

      A new jury would hear from only one or both of the women whom he was convicted of assaulting, in what analysts say will be a much narrower and weaker case.As one of Harvey Weinstein’s key accusers took the witness stand during his trial in New York, she broke down in tears, sobbing uncontrollably. After a brief break, she still could not compose herself. The trial was adjourned for the day. Hyperventilating, the woman was ushered out and her piercing screams bellowed out from a back room.The episode was one of many tense moments in the highly publicized, weekslong trial of the former Hollywood titan in 2020. Now, they may happen all over again.On Thursday, New York’s highest court ruled that the trial judge who presided over the sex crimes case in Manhattan erred when he let several women testify that Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them, even though their accusations were not part of the charges brought against the producer. The appeals court ordered a new trial.But the original trial in 2020 against Mr. Weinstein was about much more than one man’s guilt. It had morphed into something more, as his accusers sparked the global #MeToo movement: Prosecutors were trying to prove not only that Mr. Weinstein was a sexual predator, but also that the justice system was both willing and able to hold powerful men accountable for their treatment of women.The new ruling may do little to change the public’s perception of Mr. Weinstein, who is still notorious and behind bars and was sentenced to 16 years in prison for sex crimes in California.For some, however, it raised new doubts about the legal system’s ability to hold influential people like him responsible.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Jury Deadlocks on Murder Count Against Ex-Deputy in Killing of Colorado Man

      by

      A jury convicted the former deputy of reckless endangerment in the fatal shooting of a man who called 911 for help, but said it was unable to reach a verdict on charges of murder and official misconduct.A former sheriff’s deputy who fatally shot a 22-year-old man who had called 911 for help in June 2022 was found guilty on Friday of reckless endangerment, though a Colorado jury said it was unable to reach a verdict on charges of murder and official misconduct.The judge in the case, which drew scrutiny over how the police handle crisis intervention, scheduled a hearing for Monday afternoon to discuss sentencing on the reckless endangerment charge and the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on the other two counts after three days of deliberations.The former deputy, Andrew Buen, was charged in November 2022 with second-degree murder, official misconduct and reckless endangerment in the fatal shooting of Christian Glass, who called the police for help after his S.U.V. got stuck on an embankment on a mountain road near Silver Plume, Colo., about 45 miles west of Denver.Prosecutors and a lawyer for Mr. Buen did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday.“This is small step toward justice,” Siddhartha Rathod, a lawyer for the Glass family, said in a brief interview on Friday. After Mr. Glass called 911 for help on June 10, 2022, about a half-dozen officers, including Mr. Buen, arrived and spent more than an hour trying to persuade him to get out of his S.U.V.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecutors Say Trump Keeps Breaking Gag Order, With Four New Violations

      by

      Prosecutors on Thursday accused former President Donald J. Trump of violating a gag order four additional times, saying that he continues to defy the judge’s directions not to attack witnesses, prosecutors and jurors in his hush-money trial.“He’s doing what the order tells him not to do,” said Christopher Conroy, a prosecutor for the Manhattan district attorney.As Mr. Conroy laid out what he said were violations, Mr. Trump whispered to his lawyer Todd Blanche and frowned. After they spoke, Mr. Blanche rubbed his face several times.With the latest allegations, prosecutors now say that Mr. Trump has violated the gag order 15 times in less than two weeks. The judge in the case, Juan M. Merchan, is expected to rule soon on earlier violations and could hold the former president in contempt or issue a fine. The new instances include two separate attacks on his former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, once during a recent television interview and another while speaking to reporters in the hallway outside the Lower Manhattan courtroom. Another violation, prosecutors said, stemmed from a recent interview in which Mr. Trump referred to the jury as “95 percent Democrats.”The fourth example, prosecutors said, took place before the trial began on Thursday, at a campaign stop with construction workers in Manhattan. There, Mr. Trump called David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher who took the witness stand for a third time on Thursday, “a nice guy.”Prosecutors accused Mr. Trump of sending a message to Mr. Pecker and other witnesses to be “nice,” or get attacked. They said they would submit the additional violations to the court.Justice Merchan imposed the gag order on Mr. Trump in late March, barring him from making public statements about any witnesses, prosecutors, jurors or court staff, as well as their families. But within a week, Mr. Trump found a loophole in the order and repeatedly attacked the judge’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant.In a hearing earlier this week on the 10 previous violations, lawyers for Mr. Trump argued that the former president had been exercising his right to respond to attacks. Prosecutors noted that the gag order did not include exceptions for Mr. Trump to respond to those who criticize him. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Dismissed Trump Jurors Describe Intense Days in a Glaring Spotlight

      by

      Two prospective jurors who were excused contacted The New York Times to describe their experience in the fraught environment of an unprecedented trial.The two Manhattan residents were led into the courtroom to fulfill a foundational civic duty: to be interviewed as prospective jurors.But in the room when they arrived was a defendant, Donald J. Trump, unlike any in American history.Both would-be jurors, a man and a woman, were eventually excused. But the experience thrust them into the spotlight in a way they never had imagined.One was challenged by Mr. Trump’s lawyers over his past social media posts relating to the former president. The other, the woman, has a medical practice that she could not shut for six weeks while serving on the trial.While they were not chosen to sit on the jury, their experiences illustrate the intensity of the attention focused on Mr. Trump’s trial — and on the first jury to ever weigh the fate of a former United States president in a criminal proceeding.Both contacted The New York Times only after they were excused from serving. Though the court’s rules protecting prospective jurors’ identities end when they are dismissed from serving, The Times is withholding their names and most identifying characteristics about them.Like the other prospective jurors who were considered, both included detailed personal information on the juror questionnaires they filled out, including where they work.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Trial Challenge: Being Stripped of Control

      by

      The mundanity of the courtroom has all but swallowed Donald Trump, who for decades has sought to project an image of bigness and a sense of power.“Sir, can you please have a seat.”Donald J. Trump had stood up to leave the Manhattan criminal courtroom as Justice Juan M. Merchan was wrapping up a scheduling discussion on Tuesday.But the judge had not yet adjourned the court or left the bench. Mr. Trump, the 45th president of the United States and the owner of his own company, is used to setting his own pace. Still, when Justice Merchan admonished him to sit back down, the former president did so without saying a word.The moment underscored a central reality for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. For the next six weeks, a man who values control and tries to shape environments and outcomes to his will is in control of very little.Everything about the circumstances in which the former president comes to court every day to sit as the defendant in the People v. Donald J. Trump at 100 Centre Street is repellent to him. The trapped-in-amber surroundings that evoke New York City’s more crime-ridden past. The lack of control. The details of a case in which he is accused of falsifying business records to conceal a payoff to a porn star to keep her claims of an affair with him from emerging in the 2016 election.Mr. Trump in court on Friday.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesOf the four criminal cases Mr. Trump is facing, this is the one that is the most acutely personal. And people close to him are blunt when privately discussing his reaction: He looks around each day and cannot believe he has to be there.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Takeaways From Day 3 of Trump’s Hush Money Criminal Trial

      by

      The third day of Donald J. Trump’s trial started with drama and ended with a jury.After two jurors were dismissed on Thursday morning, a flurry of afternoon activity produced a full panel of 12 jurors who will decide the former president’s fate. Several alternates remain to be seated on Friday, with opening statements expected on Monday.Their work will be a unique challenge: the first prosecution of a former American president. Mr. Trump, 77, is charged with falsifying 34 business records in an attempt to cover up a payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who has said she had a brief sexual encounter with him in 2006. He has denied the charges; he could face probation or prison time if convicted.Here are five takeaways from Mr. Trump’s third day on trial:Things slowed down fast.Court officials had earlier thought jury selection might take as long as two weeks. But hopes were high on Thursday that the 12 members might be seated by close of business after seven members were picked Tuesday. Justice Juan M. Merchan had suggested that, if the fast pace continued, the prosecution and defense would offer introductory remarks on Monday morning.Then Thursday began as a slog, with both sides angling to gain any advantage, or — conversely — to get rid of any problems. For the prosecutors, that meant challenging a previously seated juror who they had discovered had credibility issues. Justice Merchan spent a long sidebar discussing the issue with lawyers from both sides and the juror. In the end, the juror was excused.By lunchtime, the jury was shrinking, not growing.Who Are Key Players in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial?The first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump is underway. Take a closer look at central figures related to the case.They sped up fast, too.Justice Merchan was quick to get back on track. After 18 potential jurors were seated in the jury box, he kept them moving as they navigated a lengthy questionnaire with Mr. Trump looking on.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      What We Know About the 12 Jurors in Donald Trump’s Criminal Trial

      by

      Twelve Manhattanites have been chosen to serve on the jury for the first criminal trial of a U.S. president.The judge ordered that the jurors’ identities be kept confidential during the trial and that reporters withhold some information that could identify them.According to their statements in court during three days of jury selection, here is what we know about the jurors:Juror 1, who will be the foreman, works in sales and lives in West Harlem. He said that he enjoys outdoor activities. He said he gets his news from The New York Times and watches Fox News and MSNBC. He said he had heard about some of former President Donald J. Trump’s other criminal cases, but he did not have an opinion about him.Juror 2 works in finance and lives in Hell’s Kitchen. He said he likes hiking, music, concerts and enjoying New York City. He said he follows Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who is expected to be a key witness, on social media. But he also said he follows figures like former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway. He said he believed Mr. Trump had done some good for the country, adding “it goes both ways.”Juror 3 works in the legal field and lives in Chelsea. He said he does not follow the news closely but, when he does, he reads The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and finds articles using Google. He added that he was not very familiar with Mr. Trump’s other criminal cases.Juror 4 is an engineer from the Upper West Side. Asked how he was during jury selection, he responded, “I am freezing.” When a lawyer asked if he had strong feelings about Mr. Trump, he responded “No, not really.”Who Are Key Players in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial?The first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump is underway. Take a closer look at central figures related to the case.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More