Written by Michael Thompson.

New York Judge Juan Merchan recently informed the New York Supreme Court that a minimal consensus among jurors could be enough to convict former President Donald Trump. According to Judge Merchan, only four out of twelve jurors need to agree on Trump’s guilt to deliver a conviction and potentially sentence him to four years in prison.

“There is no need to agree on what has occurred,” Judge Merchan stated. “They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. This means that they could split 4-4-4, and the judge would still treat them as if they had reached a unanimous decision.”

Legal Experts React

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy criticized the judge’s stance, calling it “outrageous.” He explained, “In a normal criminal case, every statutory crime has elements of the offense that need to be proven. For instance, in a bank robbery case, you must show intent and that a financial institution was robbed.”

McCarthy continued, “Here, what we are doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony. Remember, falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What elevates it to a felony is the act of concealing or committing another crime.”

He added, “The judge is telling them they don’t have to agree on what the other crime is, under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, but also what imposes a potential four-year prison penalty instead of a lesser sentence.”

Political Implications and Legal Controversy

McCarthy argued that this approach amounts to lawfare, aimed at hindering a presidential candidate during an election year. “But it’s also what gets us into the courtroom,” he explained. “If this had been a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations would have lapsed in 2019.”

“The only reason they can bring this case is because it’s a felony—allegedly—and the judge is saying, ‘you don’t have to agree on what the felony is,’” McCarthy concluded.

Our Take

This ruling by Judge Merchan raises significant concerns about the integrity of the judicial process. Allowing a conviction based on a minimal consensus among jurors undermines the principle of unanimous agreement in criminal cases. This approach sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited for political gain, particularly during critical election periods. It is imperative that the judicial system remains impartial and ensures that all elements of a crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, maintaining the public’s trust in its fairness and integrity.