The jury in former President Donald Trump’s New York City hush money trial has come under scrutiny after the presiding judge flagged a social media post. The post alleged that a juror had spoken about Trump’s verdict before it was officially handed down.
Laura Loomer, a conservative activist, posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) a screenshot of Merchan’s letter along with her comment on May 29, 2024. In her post, Loomer stated, “The comment was made days BEFORE President Trump’s guilty verdict was announced, which means he could now be entitled to a mistrial because the jury pool was tainted and compromised. This is further evidence that President Trump didn’t receive a fair trial!”
Related posts
Monica Crowley, who served as the assistant press secretary for the Treasury Department during the Trump administration, expressed her frustration with the ongoing case, stating “Enough with this bull**** case. Mistrial. No retrial. Toss the ‘conviction.'”
In response to Newsmax’s report on Merchan’s letter, GOP Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia took to X, formerly Twitter, and expressed her opinion that “the fix was in from the beginning.”
She commented, “If this is true, it provides additional evidence that President Trump was never going to be found innocent. The trial was a fraud from the outset, and the verdict of ‘guilty’ was ultimately determined by the Deep State and ‘the Big Guy’.”
In response to the reports, Utah GOP Senator Mike Lee expressed his thoughts by writing to X and stating that it was “Mistrial fodder.”
Vance informed X that having a clean record is crucial because Trump will use it as a basis for his appeal to overturn the decision. Both parties are now aware of this concern, and there is a chance to present all the relevant details and facts. If there is no substance to the matter, it will not impact the appeal.
According to Attorney Neama Rahmani, defense lawyers are usually unable to utilize jury discussions as a basis for requesting a fresh trial. This statement was made to Newsweek on Friday.
According to Rahmani, jury deliberations hold a sacred position in the legal system and cannot be used by the defense as a means to appeal or request a new trial, regardless of whether the jurors misinterpreted the facts or the law. This restriction ensures the integrity of the deliberation process and upholds the final decision made by the jury. Rahmani conveyed this message via email, emphasizing the importance of respecting the sanctity of jury deliberations.
According to him, bringing outside influences into the jury deliberation room could be an exception, and it could be a reason for a new trial.
According to Rahmani, proving the need for a new trial is a challenging task. The defense has to demonstrate the occurrence of both an inappropriate external influence and bias.
He wrote that a new trial cannot be granted solely based on a stray comment on social media.
