New York Judge Juan Merchan has brought to light possible jury misconduct in former President Donald Trump's hush money case
Concerns arose after a Facebook comment implied that a verdict in the Trump matter was known before its official announcement, as Breitbart reports.
Merchan, presiding over Trump's trial regarding allegedly falsified business records, issued warnings to Trump attorney, Todd Blanche, and Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass. The concern was spurred by a comment posted by a Facebook user who claimed a connection to one of the jurors.
The letter from Merchan to Blanche and Steinglass highlighted the potential misconduct. The comment, found on the Unified Court System's Facebook page, suggested that the jury's decision was known before the official announcement date.
The post that sparked the concern was made by a Facebook user named Michael Anderson. Anderson's comment indicated insider knowledge, stating, "My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted." The comment further expressed gratitude: "Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!" This suggested the user had an expectation of the outcome prior to its release.
The comment came to the court's attention due to its implications. Despite being a week old, it was relevant to the ongoing trial and specific proceedings.
The comment was made in response to a routine notice on the UCS page, unrelated to President Trump's case, posted on May 29. A day later, on May 30, Trump was officially found guilty.
This jury's findings included guilty verdicts 34 counts of falsifying business records. These counts were linked specifically to payments made to adult entertainer Stormy Daniels. The comment has since been deleted from the Facebook page, but its existence raised significant concerns about the integrity of the jury process.
Under New York law, a verdict can be contested based on juror misconduct. To do so, the misconduct must be proven by a preponderance of evidence. Additionally, it must be shown that the misconduct posed a substantial risk of prejudice. This condition is integral for any move to vacate a verdict.
Judge Juan Merchan's letter was explicit: “The comment, now labeled as one week old, responded to a routine UCS notice, posted on May 29, 2024, regarding oral arguments in the Fourth Department of the Appellate Division unrelated to this proceeding.” He underscored the necessity for court awareness in such situations.
Trump's entire trial and subsequent conviction related to falsified business records and election-related payments, was thus brought into question. The social media post raised concerns about potential breaches in juror protocols.
Judge Merchan's proactive stance in notifying both the defense and prosecution demonstrated a sense of vigilance about the possible ramifications. The court's response to such information is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
The concern ultimately hinges on the ability of the defense to prove that the juror misconduct, as suggested by the comment, was significant enough to affect the trial's outcome. This development adds another layer of complexity to Trump's legal battles, particularly given the sensitive nature of the trial's context.
