On Wednesday, the jury started deliberations in the historic trial of the former president Donald Trump.
The jurors was instructed by Judge Juan Merchan to “set aside” their preconceptions regarding Trump in order to consider the evidence in the case and avoid speculating about the president’s possible punishment.
Merchan stated, “If [the] people satisfy their burden of proof you must find the defendant guilty,” indicating that it is the prosecution’s responsibility to establish Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Merchan also cautioned the jury against convicting Trump based only on Michael Cohen’s testimony, Trump’s former fixer, as Cohen was an accomplice. If they believe it is supported by additional data, they may utilize it anyway,” Axios reported.
Because of how complicated the issue is and how many counts there are, discussions may take many days.
Should the jury be unable to come to a unanimous verdict, a mistrial will be proclaimed.
Judge Merchan’s jury instructions were noted by Fox News contributor and legal analyst Andy McCarthy, who expressed his belief that they were erroneous.
Here is a transcript of the Fox News conversation, courtesy of Grabien:
Host Bill Hemmer: What happens if you get a conviction for an active candidate and how it changes his campaign. This commute did not take long at all. We’ve got an early summer in late may here in New York and it is an otherwise beautiful day. The former president just passed screen to the left. Andy, before a commercial break you were talking about the complications for the jurors and what they need to consider. Don junior is there as well and others. I don’t have a list. Jason Miller. He was in front of the camera yesterday. Habba, an attorney. Turley wrote this yesterday and important to the entire matter what the jurors get. I will read it and I apologize for getting away from the screen here. I have to show viewers this. He wrote the following. Judge merchan has even ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors with one believing there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation. Another believing there was a federal election violation that Bragg cannot enforce and a third believing there was a tax violation respectively. The judge will treat that as a unanimous verdict. They could see vastly shapes but send Trump to prison on their interpretations. Is that the way it works, Andy?
McCarthy: No, it is not. It is really — it would be a constitutional outrage in any case, bill, because juries have to find unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved all of the elements of the case. So the idea that they don’t have to agree on something that essential in any case would be outrageous. But considering the historic nature of this case and also considering and I think this is very important, the other crime is what turns this from a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitations has run, to a four-year felony that has a six-year statute of limitations and why we’re all here. That crime has to be one that everybody agrees on. It is outrageous that they don’t have to agree on that.
Hemmer: Wow.
During Tuesday’s closing arguments in the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s ‘hush money’ case against former President Donald Trump, a renowned legal commentator told a CNN panel that the prosecution’s effort to prove guilt was “way short.”
“They fell way short,” defense attorney Randy Zelin told CNN’s Kate Bolduan.
“Let’s start with reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? And it’s not simply a doubt based upon reason. Any time a human being needs to make an important decision in life, if you have enough information, for example, doctor says you need open-heart surgery, ‘Doc, go ahead and schedule. I don’t have a reasonable doubt,”’ Zelin added.
“Conversely, if I say, ‘I appreciate it, but I need a second opinion, I need more information,’ that is having a reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt all over this case,” he said.
Zelin persisted in criticizing the prosecution, raising concerns about the non-testimony of former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller. He also emphasized how seriously flawed the prosecution’s case was due to Michael Cohen’s lack of credibility.
“He’s a fixer. If the plumber comes to my house to fix my leak, I could be home — that doesn’t mean I know how he’s doing it and what it’s taking to be fixed,” Zelin said.
“Stormy Daniels — let’s hold a pity party for her. Why do we need to know whether or not the former president wore a condom or not? It’s simply about, did the former president know that books, his records, false entries for legal fees — Michael Cohen was his lawyer,” Zelin continued. “Did he intend to cover up the election or to protect his family? It’s everywhere.”
One particular instance from adult film star Daniels’ testimony that might have had a lasting effect on the jury is being noted by a legal analyst as the country waits for the outcome of Trump’s “hush money” trial in Manhattan, New York.
Reporting from the Manhattan courtroom, legal analyst Harry Litman said that Daniels’s “wild” speech may have confused some jurors.
“There was a lot to see as far as the jury. We’re talking about a very, very colorful witness who detailed kinds of events and just efforts and ways of being that, I think, for the jury, were fairly foreign. She spoke very quickly, nervously, she told a lot of jokes, but not all of them landed,” he tol MSNBC.
