To convict former President Donald Trump, jurors in his business records trial do not have to agree on the crimes he is alleged to have committed, only that he falsified or had others falsify business records with the “intent to commit or conceal that crime.”
by Associated Press:
To convict Trump, a jury would have to unanimously find that he made false statements in company records or had others do so, and that he did so with the intent to commit or cover up another crime.
Prosecutors say the crimes Trump committed or concealed were “violations of New York State election law, which makes it a crime for two or more people to conspire together to ‘promote or obstruct the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.'”
But according to the Associated Press, jurors only need to unanimously agree that “something illegal was done to advance Trump’s campaign,” and they do not have to agree on what that illegal act was.
RELATED — Marlow: Vagueness of Trump lawsuit is ‘clearly unconstitutional’
Conservative legal experts and media commentators criticized the convoluted instructions, and Trump shared their criticism on this Truth Social account.
Mark Levin, a lawyer and conservative TV host, called it “grotesque” on Truth Social, posting:
The grotesque judicial travesty got even worse this morning.
The Stalinist clown judge instructed the jury to choose between three criminal areas on which to convict the former president.
1. Violation of federal election law (no one in the courtroom knew about this and the judge specifically barred Brad Smith from testifying)
2. Falsifying business records
3. Tax Violations
Of course, the question in all of the above is whether criminal intent is necessary.
Furthermore, the idea that jurors can choose one of three people and do not have to unanimously agree on which of the three they choose is another shocking development.
Additionally, federal election fraud has yet to be defined.
Fox News host Jesse Watters likened the jury’s choice of crimes to a “buffet.”
Greg Gutfeld said the prosecution’s legal theory was “very difficult to understand, and no one really knows what’s going on.”
Kevin O’Leary, chairman of O’Leary Ventures, said of the confusion, “After six weeks, we still don’t fully understand 99% of what’s going on. This is bad for American brands!”
Judge Jeanine Pirro said, “This is a camouflage courtroom. It was a sad day for me. I was sitting with Andy McCarthy, Jonathan Turley and Trey Gowdy and we all thought, ‘This has never happened before.'”
The jury will begin its second day of deliberations on Thursday. On Wednesday, jurors requested instructions from Judge Juan Marchan and to re-hear testimony from prosecution witnesses Michael Cohen and David Pecker.
The jury could reach a verdict as early as this week.
