Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the “hush money” case against President Trump, has revealed a development that could significantly impact the outcome.
Merchan sent letters to alert both parties involved in the case about a post on Facebook that was made one day before President Trump was convicted.
The post, made by a user named Michael Anderson who claimed to be the cousin of a juror, was posted on the New York State Unified Court System’s Facebook page.
In the comment, user Michael Anderson wrote: “My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted. Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!”
🚨 BREAKING: Judge Merchan sends letter to parties in NY Trump case notifying them that this comment was left on their Facebook page before the verdict:
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 7, 2024
“My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted & Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!.” pic.twitter.com/u5SBuNQs6y
At this time, it is unclear whether the post is genuine or simply a case of trolling.
However, if the post is real, New York law would require the verdict be nullified and a new trial conducted.
The Washington Examiner reported:
One week after former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts by a 12-member jury, the judge raised concern about a social media post shared to the court’s page around the time the jury’s verdict came down by a person claiming to be the “cousin” of a juror.
“Today, the Court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page and which I now bring to your attention,” Judge Juan Merchan shared in a letter to Trump’s attorneys and prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office.
“In the comment, the user, ‘Michael Anderson,’ states: ‘My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted … Thank you folks for all your hard work!!! ….’” Merchan wrote in the letter.
Merchan said the comment was left in response to a May 29 posting on the court system’s Facebook page. It’s labeled by the social media platform as “one week old,” according to Merchan, meaning it’s not clear when the comment was posted. He said the comment was “regarding oral arguments in the Fourth Department of the Appellate Division unrelated to this proceeding.”
