NEW YORK, Sept 20 (Reuters) - On Monday morning, Justice Ronald Zweibel, of state Supreme Court in Manhattan, had just begun the process of selecting a jury for the trial of a man accused of stealing more than $1 million. In a ritual he has performed countless times, Zweibel read a list of possible witnesses to the 92 potential jurors sitting before him and asked whether they had heard of any of them.

Many of the names would be familiar to City Hall junkies, if few others: Kevin Sheekey, the former deputy mayor; Frank MacKay, the chairman of the Independence Party; Patti Harris, the first deputy mayor.

Then Zweibel said, "Michael Bloomberg," and a murmur spread among the crowd as people looked around to make sure they had heard right. Slowly, dozens of hands went up.

That is the dilemma facing Zweibel, as well as prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case: How do you empanel an impartial jury in New York City when the alleged victim is the mayor?

And not just any mayor, but Mike Bloomberg -- a billionaire businessman who, over almost a decade at the helm of this blustery, opinionated city of 8 million, has transformed half of Times Square into a pedestrian mall, banned smoking nearly everywhere except in private homes, and succeeded in altering the city's charter so he could run for a third term.

Bloomberg's presence in the courtroom -- in name only for now, though prosecutors say they plan to call him as a witness -- was assured after Republican operative John Haggerty was charged with stealing $1.2 million from Bloomberg during his 2009 re-election bid. Prosecutors have accused Haggerty of selling the mayor an Election Day poll-watching operation and then keeping the money for himself to buy a house.

PRAISED AND VILIFIED

After the hands were raised, Zweibel conferenced briefly with the lawyers and came up with a new plan of attack.

"Let's do everyone with the exception of Mr. Bloomberg for now," he said, to chuckles from the jury pool. "We'll get to that later."

Jurors who felt they could not render a fair verdict on the case because of their feelings about Bloomberg -- or any of the other potential witnesses -- met individually with the judge and lawyers to explain their concerns.

Eventually, Zweibel excused about a dozen who mentioned personal connections or said their opinions of the mayor were strong enough to color their judgment.

Perhaps the only surprise was that Bloomberg's name didn't evoke a stronger reaction from more jurors. After all, he has been alternately praised and vilified for much of his tenure as mayor -- for example, over the addition of hundreds of miles of bike lanes throughout the city, or his move to change city term-limit laws, which struck some New Yorkers as an unseemly power grab.

Still, a Quinnipiac poll released last week put the mayor's approval rating among New Yorkers at 54%, a marked increase that some observers attributed to the extensive preparations he ordered last month in advance of Hurricane Irene.

Of course, selecting jurors in even the most routine trials can be a challenge. While a handful of potential jurors were excused for their connections to or opinions about Bloomberg, far more were let go because they could not commit to what could be a four-week trial. By the time the lawyers began to question the possible jurors directly, the original 92 had been whittled to fewer than 20.

'THE 800-POUND GORILLA'

While some of the lawyers' questions were routine, most centered on what defense lawyer Raymond Costello called "the 800-pound gorilla" in the room.

"Is there anybody here that feels that because a person is wealthy -- very, very wealthy, as we all know Mayor Bloomberg is -- that it's okay to steal from him?" Assistant District Attorney Eric Seidel asked. The prospective jurors shook their heads.

Costello asked each possible juror to voice his or her opinion of the mayor, and to say whether it might influence their view of him as a witness. In a kind of impromptu mayoral poll, some expressed support, others disapproval, and the rest indifference.

"The third term -- I was bothered by that," said Ryan Cassidy, a real-estate project manager.

Kevin O'Connor, who works for a bakery company, said he had a "generally favorable opinion" of the mayor.

But it was left to Francisco Alvarado, a Spanish and art teacher, to articulate the central challenge facing both sides.

"He's the mayor, so you're going to have some kind of opinion of him," said Alvarado, who allowed that as an avid biker he supports Bloomberg's new bike lanes but doesn't much care for his handling of the school system. "It's natural."

MONEY DOESN'T MATTER

Despite Seidel's concern, Bloomberg's vast riches are unlikely to matter to most jurors, said Art Patterson, senior vice president of the jury-consulting firm DecisionQuest, who cited studies showing that jurors tend to be surprisingly sympathetic toward wealthy victims.

"But the political issue is really important," he said. "Most jurors don't like the games that politicians play with campaign money. So that brings us to the key issue: can a juror who is biased against Bloomberg for political reasons be a fair and impartial juror?"

By the end of the day, prosecutors and defense attorneys had agreed on just five acceptable jurors from the original pool.

And so on Tuesday morning, Zweibel started the whole process over again -- with a new panel of 85 prospective jurors. He said he hopes to be finished by Friday.

The case is People v. Haggerty, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 2598/2010.

For the prosecution: Assistant District Attorneys Eric Seidel, Vanessa Richards and Brian Weinberg.

For Haggerty: Raymond Costello of Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin, & Spratt and Dennis Vacco of Lippes, Mathias, Wexler, Friedman.

(Reporting by Joseph Ax)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal