A recent development could dramatically alter the legal landscape for former President Donald Trump. Judge Juan M. Merchan, who’s presiding over Trump’s high-stakes trial, has brought attention to a Facebook comment that suggests potential juror bias—a twist that might change everything in this already tumultuous case. This comes right after Trump faced a historic conviction by a Manhattan jury on charges of falsifying business records related to the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal.
“Dear Counsel: Today, the Court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page and which I now bring to your attention,” wrote Judge Merchan. The post in question was made by a user named ‘Michael Anderson,’ who claimed, “My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted. Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!”
The comment, discovered just a week ago, was flagged by Judge Merchan on Friday. It’s causing quite a stir because it was attached to a routine UCS notice about unrelated oral arguments, yet it directly referred to the ongoing Trump trial.
🚨 BREAKING: Judge Merchan sends letter to parties in NY Trump case notifying them that this comment was left on their Facebook page before the verdict:
“My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted & Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!.” pic.twitter.com/u5SBuNQs6y
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 7, 2024
Trump was recently found guilty on all 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business records, which stemmed from an alleged scheme to keep a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels under wraps right before the 2016 election. Throughout the trial, Trump maintained his innocence, claiming the entire process was politically motivated.
The emergence of this Facebook comment brings the integrity of the verdict into sharp focus. It suggests that one of the jurors might have been biased against Trump from the start, potentially undermining the fairness of the trial. If it turns out that any juror was prejudiced or influenced by outside information, this could be grounds for a mistrial or an appeal, as Trump’s lawyers could argue that his right to a fair trial was compromised.
Any potential juror misconduct would trigger a detailed investigation into how jurors were selected and what they discussed during deliberations. This could put off sentencing and drag out the legal proceedings. In high-profile cases like this, even a hint of impropriety can cast a long shadow over the legal system’s credibility. Trump, who is eyeing another presidential run, could use this development to strengthen his claims of being unfairly targeted and energize his base.
“It was a rigged trial, it was a disgrace,” Trump exclaimed outside the courtroom. He pointed to the upcoming elections, saying, “The real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people.” He continued to assert his innocence, adding, “We didn’t do a thing wrong. I am a very innocent man. We have a country that is in big trouble.”
Trump faced these charges, pushed forward by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, which revolved around proving that Trump intended to hide the payment to Daniels. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who was a key witness for the prosecution, claimed Trump directed him to “handle it” to prevent a scandal from erupting before the elections. Nonetheless, Trump’s defense team has fiercely disputed that any directive was ever given to Cohen regarding the payment.
"*" indicates required fields
