Judge In NYC Trial Just Pulled Nasty Last Minute Move Against Trump
On Wednesday, the jury began deliberations in the historic trial of former President Donald Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan instructed the jurors to “set aside” their preconceptions about Trump and focus solely on the evidence presented in the case, emphasizing the importance of not speculating about the president’s potential punishment.
Merchan stated, “If [the] people satisfy their burden of proof you must find the defendant guilty,” indicating that it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Merchan also cautioned the jury against convicting Trump based solely on the testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, due to Cohen being an accomplice. However, if they believe Cohen’s testimony is supported by other evidence, they may still consider it,” Axios reported.
Given the complexity of the case and the number of charges, deliberations could take several days.
If the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict, a mistrial will be declared.
Fox News contributor and legal analyst Andy McCarthy commented on Judge Merchan’s instructions, expressing his opinion that they were incorrect.
Here is a transcript of the Fox News discussion, courtesy of Grabien:
Host Bill Hemmer: What happens if you get a conviction for an active candidate and how it changes his campaign. This commute did not take long at all. We’ve got an early summer in late May here in New York and it is an otherwise beautiful day. The former president just passed screen to the left. Andy, before a commercial break you were talking about the complications for the jurors and what they need to consider. Don junior is there as well and others. I don’t have a list. Jason Miller. He was in front of the camera yesterday. Habba, an attorney. Turley wrote this yesterday and important to the entire matter what the jurors get. I will read it and I apologize for getting away from the screen here. I have to show viewers this. He wrote the following. Judge Merchan has even ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors with one believing there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation. Another believing there was a federal election violation that Bragg cannot enforce and a third believing there was a tax violation respectively. The judge will treat that as a unanimous verdict. They could see vastly different shapes but send Trump to prison on their interpretations. Is that the way it works, Andy?
McCarthy: No, it is not. It is really — it would be a constitutional outrage in any case, Bill, because juries have to find unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved all of the elements of the case. So the idea that they don’t have to agree on something that essential in any case would be outrageous. But considering the historic nature of this case and also considering, and I think this is very important, the other crime is what turns this from a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations has run, to a four-year felony that has a six-year statute of limitations and why we’re all here. That crime has to be one that everybody agrees on. It is outrageous that they don’t have to agree on that.
Hemmer: Wow.
During Tuesday’s closing arguments in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s ‘hush money’ case against former President Donald Trump, a renowned legal commentator told a CNN panel that the prosecution’s effort to prove guilt was “way short.”
“They fell way short,” defense attorney Randy Zelin told CNN’s Kate Bolduan.
“Let’s start with reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? And it’s not simply a doubt based upon reason. Any time a human being needs to make an important decision in life, if you have enough information, for example, doctor says you need open-heart surgery, ‘Doc, go ahead and schedule. I don’t have a reasonable doubt,’” Zelin added.
“Conversely, if I say, ‘I appreciate it, but I need a second opinion, I need more information,’ that is having a reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt all over this case,” he said.
Zelin continued to criticize the prosecution, questioning why former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller did not testify. He also highlighted Michael Cohen’s lack of credibility as a major flaw in the prosecution’s case.
“He’s a fixer. If the plumber comes to my house to fix my leak, I could be home — that doesn’t mean I know how he’s doing it and what it’s taking to be fixed,” Zelin said.
“Stormy Daniels — let’s hold a pity party for her. Why do we need to know whether or not the former president wore a condom? It’s simply about whether the former president knew that books, his records, false entries for legal fees — Michael Cohen was his lawyer,” Zelin continued. “Did he intend to cover up the election or to protect his family? It’s everywhere.”
One particular instance from adult film star Daniels’ testimony that might have had a lasting effect on the jury is being noted by a legal analyst as the country waits for the outcome of Trump’s “hush money” trial in Manhattan, New York.
Reporting from the Manhattan courtroom, legal analyst Harry Litman said that Daniels’s “wild” testimony may have confused some jurors.
“There was a lot to see as far as the jury. We’re talking about a very, very colorful witness who detailed kinds of events and just efforts and ways of being that, I think, for the jury, were fairly foreign. She spoke very quickly, nervously, she told a lot of jokes, but not all of them landed,” he told MSNBC.