Musk’s Twitter Trial Gets Jurors Who Can Set Aside Feelings

Nine jurors, claiming they can be fair and impartial to Elon Musk and his controversial purchase of Twitter in 2022, were seated in San Francisco federal court Thursday, whittled down from a pool of 93.

Judge Charles R Breyer spent over five hours on jury selection Thursday in the investor class action trial set to begin with opening statements March 2.

The trial involves claims from Twitter investors who say Musk violated securities law by publicly waffling over his decision to purchase the company and driving down its stock price. It’s expected to last about three weeks and may include live testimony from Musk, who later renamed the company X Corp., as well as former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal.

Breyer, a veteran trial judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California, told attorneys for Musk and the investors that it would be almost impossible to impanel a jury that had no views at all about Musk.

“He’s like the president of the United States, I could search the entire country,” Breyer said. “As a public figure he will excite strong views, and for him in particular, people have strong views.”

“The question is, and courts are very clear about this, is whether they can set them aside,” Breyer said.

Among those selected for the jury were a salesperson, a mechanical engineer, and a university IT worker.

‘Becoming Desensitized’

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 man, who was dismissed, said in his questionnaire that he disliked class action lawsuits and said under questioning that he felt as though the investors were “coming back to get more” of out Musk.

Another woman who was eliminated said that she believed Musk is a “brilliant scientist” and that he had done a lot to help humanity. Under questioning from the investors’ attorney, Aaron Arnzen of Bottini & Bottini Inc., the woman said she would be nervous if she were the attorney for the investors and she was selected for the jury.

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.

Investors filed the class action in October 2022, alleging that Musk’s flip-flopping position on whether he’d complete the acquisition of Twitter was meant to artificially drive down the stock price and increase his leverage in negotiations.

After becoming the company’s largest shareholder at the start of 2022, Musk announced in April his intentions to purchase the entire company, offering $54.20 per share, amounting to $44 billion. He soon backed out of the transaction, sparking additional lawsuits, before ultimately concluding the acquisition in October.

Musk, the CEO of Tesla Inc. and SpaceX, is no stranger to investor lawsuits involving his sometimes erratic public statements. He was sued in the same San Francisco federal court in 2018 over a tweet claiming that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 per share, triggering fluctuations in the stock price.

He defeated the case in 2023 after a three-week trial when a jury cleared him of claims that he’d defrauded investors through the tweets.

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP also represent the investors.

The case is Pampena v. Musk, N.D. Cal., No. 3:22-cv-05937, 2/19/26.