In the ongoing New York City criminal trial against former President Donald J. Trump, Judge Juan Merchan has instructed jurors that they do not need to reach unanimity on the specific crime committed by Trump in order to convict him. This directive implies that jurors can disagree on the particular offense while still rendering a unanimous verdict.
Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, expressed strong objections to this instruction. He stated:
“Judge Merchan’s instructions to the jury violate former President Trump’s right to due process and have made it far more likely that the jury will convict him.
“Judges are supposed to remain neutral, but throughout this entire trial, he has been acting like a member of the prosecution team. While the judge instructed the jury that it must unanimously conclude that Trump caused a false entry to be made on the books of the Trump Organization for the purpose of concealing another crime, he told the jury that they do not have to be unanimous as to what that other crime might be.
“This is fundamentally unfair and would, no doubt, result in any conviction being thrown out on appeal. This is nothing but an attempt to damage Donald Trump’s electoral prospects.”
The legal community continues to closely monitor developments in this high-profile case.
