@AttyTMD is correct. Rather obvious: (a) requiring a formal response from the ju

@AttyTMD is correct.
Rather obvious:
(a) requiring a formal response from the judge produces a document (record) justifying the denial of a questionnaire.
(b) in this high profile case it’s logical to investigate the DEMONSTRATED biases of the jury members rather than the REPORTED verbal statements of the jury members.
(c) Without it, if jury is later found to have prejudgements, it provides criteria for appeal.
(d) So the balance of the argument relies on the court’s presumption that trump’s team can coerce the jurors versus the trump team’s presumption that jurors may have a prejudice against him.
(e) Were I trump’s lawyer I would prefer the judge demonstrate an asymmetry of perception of risk in this case, by the ‘balance of probabilities’, so that we could now ‘win either way’ because by denying it, we increase moral license on behalf of trumps supporters, we increase the chance of demonstrating judicial bias as well as jury bias, and we increase the chance of appeal OR we obtain the information from the jurors to ensure that they are free of prejudice, and then avoid all possible accusations of jury coercion, thereby solidifying our case.
Win-Win for The defense.

Reply addressees: @AttyTMD @lawofruby