Two jurors selected for Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan were excused on Thursday, demonstrating the challenges of picking a jury to decide the fate of someone as polarizing as Mr. Trump.
A woman selected for the jury told the judge overseeing the case — the first criminal trial of a former president — that she had developed concerns about her identity being revealed. That, she said, might compromise her fairness and “decision-making in the courtroom.”
The other juror, a man from the Lower East Side, was excused after he arrived to court later Thursday morning. The precise reason for his dismissal was not immediately clear, but prosecutors had raised concerns early in the day about the credibility of answers he gave to questions about himself.
Asked outside the courthouse whether he believed he should have been dismissed, the man, who declined to give his name, replied: “Nope.”
The dismissals, the latest unexpected episode in a trial that is sure to be full of them, rankled the judge, who said he thought the woman would have “been a very good juror.”
Although the judge, Juan M. Merchan, has kept prospective jurors’ names private, they have disclosed their employers and other identifying information in court. Now, however, Justice Merchan has instructed reporters to no longer divulge where a prospective juror works.
It was unclear how much of a hindrance the two ousters would be for the case, which centers on accusations that Mr. Trump falsified documents to cover up a sex scandal. Justice Merchan had previously signaled that the jury could be set this week and that opening arguments might begin Monday, which is still feasible.
The dismissals brought the number of seated jurors down to five. Lawyers on both sides of the case will now seek to replace them — and find several more through the rest of the week. The final panel will include 12 jurors and as many as six alternates who will step in if a main juror gets sick or is excused for other reasons.
The woman excused from the jury said she had been concerned about public reports about her. She is an oncology nurse and her employer had been widely reported. Her friends, colleagues and family told her she had been identified as a potential juror, an alarming development that she said prompted her to reconsider whether she could serve.
The male juror, when approached by a reporter outside the courthouse, said he didn’t want to answer questions. He nodded, however, when asked if he thought he could be unbiased and shook his head when asked if he felt at all intimidated in the courtroom.
Nate Schweber contributed reporting.
