Jury Deliberations Begin in Soros-Backed DA’s Case Against Trump

Written by James Anderson.

Jury deliberations commenced Wednesday in the highly publicized trial involving former President Donald Trump and alleged payments to a porn star. The jurors, consisting of seven men and five women, began their discussions just before 11:30 a.m., tasked with reaching a verdict in this unprecedented criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

Judge Juan M. Merchan emphasized the jury’s responsibility in evaluating the evidence, despite facing heavy criticism for perceived biases. He denied several defense motions for potentially exculpatory witnesses while granting considerable leeway to the prosecution. Instead of specifying the second crime required for a conviction, Merchan allowed jurors to choose from a list of options, stating they need not agree on which crime to convict Trump.

Trump’s Reaction and Legal Proceedings

Following an hour-long reading of jury instructions, Trump left the courtroom, reiterating his belief in the trial’s unfairness. He remarked, “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged.” Both Trump and his lawyers were instructed to remain in the courthouse during deliberations.

Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records linked to an alleged scheme to conceal embarrassing stories during his 2016 campaign. These charges, normally misdemeanors under New York law, were elevated to federal felonies by George Soros-backed District Attorney Alvin Bragg to circumvent the statute of limitations.

The case centers on reimbursements to Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who paid $130,000 to porn actor Stormy Daniels as part of a nondisclosure agreement. Trump is accused of falsely recording these reimbursements as legal expenses, though the payment itself was not illegal. The prosecution’s case hinges on convincing the jury that Trump deliberately falsified records to influence the election.

Legal Implications and Jury Dynamics

To secure a conviction, the jury must unanimously agree that Trump created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, with the intent of committing or concealing another crime. The prosecution argues that Trump’s actions violated New York election law by using unlawful means to influence an election.

The diverse jury, drawn from Manhattan residents and professionals, appeared engaged throughout the trial, especially during testimonies from Cohen and Daniels. They began deliberations after a day of closing arguments, with a prosecutor speaking for over five hours. The defense, which spoke for about half that time, aimed to show at least one juror that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.

Judge Merchan provided standard instructions on evaluating witness testimony, emphasizing factors such as plausibility, consistency, and the witness’s manner. He also explained accessorial liability, allowing Trump to be held responsible for actions taken by his company’s employees if he solicited or commanded those actions.

Our Take

This case raises serious concerns about judicial fairness and the integrity of the legal 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, especially during election periods. It is crucial for the judicial system to maintain impartiality and ensure that all elements of a crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, preserving public trust in its fairness.

Trending Stories:

Our Sponsors: