Former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York has seen early signs of disagreement among jurors, according to prominent law professor Jonathan Turley. During the proceedings, jurors asked to rehear Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions, a move that may indicate disagreements within the jury. The trial revolves around allegations that Trump fraudulently misclassified non-disclosure payments made to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford as part of an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.
President Trump maintains his innocence and has accused the trial of being a politically-motivated attempt to undermine his potential 2024 presidential run. As jurors deliberated, they sent several notes to Judge Merchan, one requesting testimony transcripts and another, filed at 3:51 p.m., asking to re-hear the judge’s instructions.
Turley, who has been observing the proceedings from his position in the courtroom, shared his view that this request indicates a possible disagreement among jurors. After jurors returned to the courtroom, Judge Merchan informed them that the compilation of testimony they requested for a readback was not yet complete and dismissed them with an admonishment not to discuss the case with anyone. Jury deliberations are scheduled to resume at 9:30 a.m. the following day.
Under New York state law, falsifying business records can be considered a misdemeanor if it stands alone. However, if the act is used to cover up or commit an underlying crime, the charge can be elevated to a felony. Judge Merchan’s jury instructions will play a crucial role in the case, as subtle differences in the instructions can significantly impact a jury’s determination of guilt or innocence.
In his instructions, Judge Merchan told jurors that prosecutors must persuade them on two aspects of the count of falsifying business records in the first degree to convict President Trump: one is that he “personally, or by acting in concert with another person or persons, made or caused a false entry in the records” of a business and two, that he did so with the intent to commit or conceal another underlying crime—conspiring to interfere in an election. Judge Merchan also instructed jurors that they must unanimously decide whether President Trump conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, but do not need to be unanimous on what those unlawful means were.
In their deliberations, jurors are considering three possible unlawful means that could have been utilized: violations of federal campaign finance law; falsification of other business records, such as bank records or tax forms; and violation of city, state, and federal tax laws, including by providing false or fraudulent information on tax returns, regardless of whether it resulted in underpayment of taxes or not. Several legal experts have raised objections to this aspect of Judge Merchan’s instructions, including Turley and former Kansas attorney general Phillip Kline, who is now a law professor.