Donald Trump, who famously adores being adored, says his felony conviction is unfair because the jurors never smiled at him (story here).
But that doesn’t prove the jury was biased against him. It probably just means they took jury duty seriously, which is what you want them to do.
Or maybe they didn’t smile at him because he was a sourpuss through the entire trial (see courtroom artist’s sketch at left).
When I was a law student in moot court, and my jury pool was a group of high school students, I excused a potential juror for giggling and laughing because I wanted serious jurors.
By the way, participating in a law school moot court is good civics training for secondary school students, because as adults they may be called upon to serve on a jury.
Trump is known for being a whiner, too, but he’s a piker compared to the California school superintendent who retaliated against a group of students for not clapping loudly enough when her daughter received an award. (She was fired, and is being sued by one of the students. Read that story here.)
The ex-superintendent is the kind of person who would “Trump” a jury for not smiling enough. You know, make threats. But that’s not only foolish, it’s water over the dam.
Your chance to do something about jurors you dislike is during jury selection; once jurors are empaneled, you’re stuck with them. After the trial, you have to prove juror misconduct to get the verdict tossed, and failing to smile at the defendant isn’t misconduct. Usually it’s justified.