A full 12-person jury has been sworn in for ex-US President Donald Trump’s historic criminal trial in New York City
The seven men and five women were selected for the panel. Two jurors had to be excused earlier.
Some thought jury selection might take weeks, but things moved quickly after Mr Trump’s team ran out of challenges.
The court could hear opening arguments as early as Monday.
The trial, the first ever in which a former US president is the defendant, stems from a hush-money payment to a porn star.
Stormy Daniels was given $130,000 (£105,000) before the 2016 election to buy her silence about an affair she claims she had with Mr Trump – an affair that Mr Trump denies having.
The payment itself was not illegal, but Mr Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat. He has pleaded not guilty.
As Mr Trump left court on Thursday evening, he showed dozens of printed media articles criticising the charges, which he said were “political”.
“It’s a very unfair, very bad thing,” said the Republican, who will challenge President Joe Biden, a Democrat, for the White House in November’s election.
The jury-selection session faced an initial setback after Justice Juan Merchan dismissed two members of the panel who had been seated this week.
The judge announced that Juror #2 had realised she could no longer be impartial after friends and family gleaned from media reports that she had been chosen for the panel. They began to bombard her with messages, she said.
“I don’t believe at this point that I can be fair and unbiased,” she said, as it might be difficult not to let outside opinions affect her decision in the courtroom.
Justice Merchan swiftly excused her, and subsequently limited the information reporters could use for descriptions of jurors to make them less identifiable.
“We just lost what probably would’ve been a very good juror for this case,” he said.
She was not the only one to be dismissed.
Justice Merchan said that after conducting some research, lawyers for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office discovered that Juror #4 may have lied about having no criminal history.
The judge said it appeared he had been arrested in the 1990s for tearing down political advertisements, while his wife may have been involved in a corruption case investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
After a long and private discussion with the legal teams and Justice Merchan, this juror was excused.
