Per @DevlinBarrett, in the press pool: Trump's aide Jason Miller and campaign spokesman Steven Cheung are present in the courtroom.
The judge announces: Juror #2, the nurse who announced "no one is above the law," expressed concerns about her ability to be fair, after being sworn in on Tuesday.
She's brought into the courtroom: Juror #2: "I definitely have concerns now." [...] "Yesterday alone, I had friends, colleagues and family push things to my phone, questioning my identity as a juror." She is excused.
Merchan addresses the press: He says revealing too many juror details "defeats the purpose" of anonymity. "The press is certainly able and permitted to write about anything that's on the record, because it's on the record."
Merchan: "But I'm directing that the press simply applies common sense." In an extraordinary order, the judge directs reporters not to report physically and audibly identifying information about the jury.
Prosecutors complain that the most identifying information may be Question 3A: "Who is your current employer?" They want more generalized answers to that question. The defense says they need that information. Merchan agrees. He directs the press not to report that.
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Conroy proposes a new order to show cause, telling the judge that Trump "violated the order seven more times." "It's ridiculous. It's got to stop." He wants to add seven more violations to next week's contempt hearing.
Questions emerge about Juror #4, who called Trump "fascinating and mysterious." ADA Steinglass says a person with the same name had been arrested in Westchester for tearing down political ads.
Steinglass says that he's not sure it's the same person, but it merits an inquiry.
So we started the day with seven jurors. We're now at six. Next up, five?
A quick note: The press likely will be scrutinizing the language of the Merchan's order directing, in his words, that reporters refrain from disclosing physically identifying information about potential jurors. So if there's a Batson challenge — alleging a juror was stricken based on race or another protected characteristic — reporters may not be able to tell you why.
Analysis: Concerns about the privacy and safety of anonymous jurors in the historic first prosecution of a former U.S. president are serious, sparking serious conversations about journalism ethics in most newsrooms. At the same time, trust and accountability about the system depends on responsible reporting on how the process works—beyond the stereotypes about the New York jury pool. There are good reasons to know about the diversity and fairness of the panel, while protecting juror security. Most responsible reporters and news organizations have been grappling about how to balance these objectives. Now, back to the news.