Jurors in the Trump business records trial do not have to agree on what crime former President Donald Trump allegedly committed in order to convict him, but would just have to agree that he falsified or caused someone else to falsify business records with the “intent of committing or hiding that crime.”
According to the Associated Press:
To convict Trump, the jury would have to find unanimously that he created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records, or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing another crime.
Prosecutors say the crime that Trump committed or hid is a “violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators ‘to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.’”
But according to the AP, the jury just has to unanimously agree that “something unlawful was done to promote Trump’s election campaign,” but they do not have to agree on what that unlawful thing was.
RELATED — Marlow: Vagueness in Trump Case ‘Clearly Unconstitutional’
Conservative legal experts and media pundits criticized those convoluted instructions, with Trump sharing that criticism on this Truth Social account.
Mark Levin, lawyer and conservative show host, called it “grotesque” on Truth Social, posting:
The grotesque trial charade gets even worse this morning.
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 the judge specifically prevents Brad Smith from testifying about);
2. The falsification of business records; and
3. Tax violations
Of course, the issue for all of the above is the requirement of a criminal intent.
Furthermore, the idea that jurors can pick 1 of the 3, and they don’t have to unanimously agree on which of the three, is another shocking development.
Moreover, the federal campaign violation has still not been defined.
Fox News host Jesse Watters compared the jury picking a crime to being at a “buffet.”
Greg Gutfied called the prosecution’s legal theory “so difficult to follow that nobody knows what’s going on.”
Kevin O’Leary, chairman of O’Leary Ventures, said the confusion was, “I bet you after all of these six weeks…you are still 99% totally confused on what the hell is going on…IT’S BAD FOR THE AMERICAN BRAND!”
Judge Jeanine Pirro said: “This is a kangaroo court…It was a sad day for me. I sat with Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley and Trey Gowdy, and we were all like ‘This is unheard of.’”
Jurors will deliberate for a second day beginning Thursday. On Wednesday, they requested to rehear Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions, as well as some testimony by prosecution witnesses Michael Cohen and David Pecker.
The jury could reach a verdict as soon as this week.
