As the trial in the Huawei case — the emblem of Washington's technology sanctions on China — resumed on the 8th, more than eight years after the indictment, both sides fought over jury selection. Each tried to secure jurors even slightly favorable to its position through vetting far more demanding than in other cases.
The case had stayed below the surface for eight years because of court delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the sheer volume of evidence to be established. It has drawn attention by returning to the courtroom about 10 days before Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to the United States. Disputes over Huawei's dealings with Iran have been added to the mix, pointing to an even sharper confrontation.
The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported on the 15th, citing U.S. litigation experts, that jury selection in the Huawei trial was more demanding than in other cases.
Richard Gabriel, president of the litigation consulting firm Decision Analysis, said several hundred prospective jurors in the trial received a questionnaire of more than 80 items during voir dire. "The questionnaire was much longer than in a typical criminal case," he said.
Lawyers for both sides are said to have argued for months over which questions to include. "The questionnaire included questions on whether jurors held fixed views of the Communist Party, or had personal or professional ties to China," Gabriel said. "Given the nature of the case, the pretrial press coverage and the potential international impact, both sides appear to have wanted to ask a great many questions to get a better sense of the prospective jurors' leanings."
Voir dire is the process in which the presiding judge and lawyers for both sides question prospective jurors before a trial begins to screen out possible bias or conflicts of interest that could keep them from hearing the case fairly. After voir dire, lawyers for each side may strike a set number of jurors they consider unfavorable without giving a reason. Through that process, 12 jurors and six alternates have now been selected, the SCMP said.
Huawei vs. U.S. Prosecutors: Strategies to Win Over the Jury
Experts expect Huawei, the defendant, to stress to jurors that improper conduct by a few rogue executives can occur at any large company. They also expect the company to work at impressing on jurors its human side. On the 9th, a lawyer for Huawei opened by describing how founder Ren Zhengfei built the world's largest telecommunications company from a small apartment more than 40 years ago.
Prosecutors, by contrast, are expected to focus on convincing jurors that Huawei engaged in criminal conduct as an organization over a long period. Experts said prosecutors will need to be especially careful not to touch off preconceptions about the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.
"Given the perception that New Yorkers lean liberal, federal prosecutors will also be worried that jurors may hold a bias against the U.S. government under the current administration," Gabriel said. "Public suspicion is especially strong these days about whether the Trump administration is politically targeting other countries and their companies." Another expert said prosecutors risk a backlash rather than a sympathetic hearing if jurors sense they are relying on shortcuts.
The U.S. government earlier charged Huawei on 12 counts, including violations of U.S. sanctions related to Iran and theft of trade secrets from American competitors. Prosecutors view some of the counts as violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), introduced in the 1970s to prosecute the Mafia. If those counts are upheld, Huawei would be defined as a criminal organization. Huawei denies all of the charges. The trial is expected to run through December.
