Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing the garbage “hush money” trial against President Trump, made a shocking statement during jury instructions on Wednesday.
Merchan informed the jury that reaching a unanimous agreement is not necessary to determine President Trump’s guilt on all 34 felony counts, as reported by Fox News journalist John Roberts. Illustrating this point, Merchan stated that three groups of four jurors could independently find Trump guilty of distinct crimes, and he will still interpret it as a “unanimous verdict.”
Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.
— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) May 29, 2024
Judge Merchan is permitting the jurors to select ONE of the three predicate crimes. Jurors do not need to unanimously agree on which of the three crimes Trump supposedly committed.
Wow.
Below are the three predicate crimes via Mark Levin:
1. Violations of federal election law (which no one in that courtroom is familiar with, and the judge specifically prevents Brad Smith from testifying about);
2. The falsification of business records; and
3. Tax violations
The grotesque trial charade gets even worse this morning.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) May 29, 2024
The Stalinist clown judge directed the jury that they can choose among three areas of crimes to convict the former president:
1. Violations of federal election law (which no one in that courtroom is familiar with, and…
This is insane.
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 29, 2024
New York Judge Merchan just told jurors that they DO NOT have to unanimously agree on what crime Trump is guilty of.
It could be a 4-4-4 split.
pic.twitter.com/lPrWlQYHau
Legal experts were quick to voice their concerns regarding the constitutionality of Merchan’s jury instructions.
Attorney and Newsmax anchor Greta Van Susteren promptly referenced a Supreme Court precedent concerning unanimity. Quoting a section from the 1999 Richardson v. United States case, she highlighted, “The jury must be unanimous as to the ‘series’ of underlying offenses in a [criminal conspiracy] prosecution. That is, the jury must unanimously agree that the defendant committed some ‘continuing series of violations,’ but also about which specific ‘violations’ make up that continuing series.”
Here is Supreme Court case on unanimity https://t.co/XYhalXJSYD pic.twitter.com/MIcPxZosOQ
— Greta Van Susteren (@greta) May 25, 2024
The CEO of The Federalist, Sean Davis, said Juan Merchan should be in prison for his corruption.
Merchan is a corrupt apparatchik who belongs in prison. It would be nice if prosecutors treated his own courtroom antics as a conspiracy to violate rights and as undisclosed in-kind campaign contributions to Joe Biden.
Merchan is a corrupt apparatchik who belongs in prison. It would be nice if prosecutors treated his own courtroom antics as a conspiracy to violate rights and as undisclosed in-kind campaign contributions to Joe Biden. https://t.co/XVUAvUcZsF
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 29, 2024
According to former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, the act of mixing and matching crimes violates every principle outlined in the Due Process Clause.
This violates every principle of the Due Process Clause and criminal process known to man. (Or of the Privileges & Immunities Clause according to Justice Thomas’s view.)
1) Merchan’s approach violates fair notice. And it’s not remotely fair notice to tell a criminal defendant — the jury can pick and choose its own crime.
2) It violates jury unanimity. Judge Merchan needs to acquaint himself with Ramos v. Louisiania from the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe he missed it but it is four years old at this point.
The issue at this point is not whether Judge Merchan has jumped the shark but how many sharks he’s jumped. It’s already past the point of absurdity.
This violates every principle of the Due Process Clause and criminal process known to man. (Or of the Privileges & Immunities Clause according to Justice Thomas’s view.)
— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) May 29, 2024
1) Merchan’s approach violates fair notice. And it’s not remotely fair notice to tell a criminal defendant… https://t.co/TmitvCcE4C
Media analyst Mark Thompson said, “This trial has been a farce from the beginning; vindictive prosecutors, maniacal misinterpretation of law, corrupt witnesses, conflicted judge, and politically targeted defendant. The only thing that remains is for a biased jury to convict on a non existent crime. History will judge this NY sham trial as the complete disgrace that it is.”
This trial has been a farce from the beginning; vindictive prosecutors, maniacal misinterpretation of law, corrupt witnesses, conflicted judge, and politically targeted defendant. The only thing that remains is for a biased jury to convict on a non existent crime. History will…
— Mark Thompson 🇺🇸 (@marktmt) May 29, 2024
Of course, this will make it easier to convict Trump, it could also set the defense up for a speedy appeal if a guilty verdict is returned.
