A class action suit has been filed against Twitter and the trial has begun in San Francisco, but Judge Charles R. Breyer is having difficulty finding enough potential jurors who are impartial with regards to Elon Musk.

The case involves Twitter investors who are angry that Musk drove down the price of the stock by publicly waffling over his decision to buy the company.

So far nine jurors have been seated out of a pool of 93, but it ain’t easy according to an article in Bloomberg Law:

Many of the prospective jurors expressed negative views about Musk or his companies and political allies in a questionnaire ahead of the selection process, Breyer said. He continually reminded them that they can only serve if they have a genuine belief that they could set aside those views and decide the case on the facts presented at trial.

Breyer quickly eliminated nearly 40 prospective jurors who raised their hands when asked if they could not set aside their biases. The judge and the attorneys continued to shave down the numbers over multiple rounds of questioning throughout the day.

[…]

One prospective juror stated that he could be impartial in a civil trial, but that if this were a criminal trial he would have a “moral obligation” to convict Musk and send him to prison. The juror was later dismissed.

Musk’s attorney Stephen Broome of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP objected to a number of prospective jurors who claimed they could set aside their negative views on Musk.

“We have so many people in the venire who hate him so much that we’re becoming desensitized,” Broome said. In any other case where a prospective juror said in a questionnaire that they hated the defendant, “there would be no question” that they would be tossed out, Broome said.

Breyer said a challenge will come down to whether a juror can genuinely put aside their feelings. The judge dismissed a juror who claimed impartiality but stated in his questionnaire that he disagrees “with the existence of billionaires,” as well as a woman who said she could be fair but stated in her questionnaire that she hated how Musk fired content moderators after taking over Twitter.

I, of course, have very strong opinions about that son of a bitch from South Africa, but I’d happily set them aside in order to pass judgement on him in a civil trial. Sure I would.

When asked by his lawyers what I think of Musk, I’d say something along the lines of I’m leery of very wealthy people as I believe they think they can get away with anything because of their money, and I feel they ought to use their wealth to try to make the world a better place. In Musk’s case, although I’m annoyed by some of his antics, I think he has tried to make the world a better place by promoting electric vehicles via his Tesla company, so I could be impartial in judging him. It does have some elements of truth, so I think I could spit that out without giggling too much.

Think his lawyers would buy it?