In a Manhattan Court, a Jury Is Picked to Judge a President

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.

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 alternate was also picked before court adjourned. The judge plans to conclude jury selection Friday, when the lawyers will select the remaining five alternates.

Although the judge has kept prospective jurors’ names private, they disclosed their employers and other identifying information in open court. But Merchan instructed reporters to no longer divulge prospective jurors’ current or past employers, a decision that some media law experts questioned.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times .