Will The Jury in Trump's Trial Uphold Justice or Display Willful Ignorance?
The government and defense cases in the trial of Donald Trump have concluded. The government is banking on the jury's animosity towards Trump to outweigh the lack of direct evidence of a crime. I remain hopeful that the jurors will uphold the integrity of the New York legal system, possibly resulting in a hung jury. Ultimately, we will see if a Manhattan jury will uphold impartial justice or display willful ignorance.
The Trial Heads to the Jury
The prosecution of former President Donald Trump is set to go to a jury with closing arguments scheduled for Tuesday, May 28. Judge Juan Merchan has consistently denied opportunities to end this politically motivated prosecution. It now falls on 12 New Yorkers to do what neither the court nor the prosecutors were willing to do: uphold the rule of law, regardless of the defendant's identity.
The Charges
Merchan has permitted the government to resurrect a dead misdemeanor and transform it into 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has alluded to a range of crimes that Trump allegedly sought to hide through these business record violations. However, the secondary crime remains so vague that experts are still debating the underlying theory of the case.
Prosecution Strategy
The prosecution is working to lower the bar for a conviction. They have alluded to a variety of potential offenses, from tax to election violations. Bragg initially proposed four possible predicate crimes, now reduced to three – a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law.
Merchan has ruled that the jury does not need to agree on what crimes were being concealed. This means the jury could have three different interpretations of the case and still convict Trump. Prosecutors are also trying to lower the standard of proof for the key term "unlawful means". The defense argues that the jury must find that such use of "unlawful means" was done with willful intent, but the prosecutors are against this higher standard.
Counting on the Jury
Bragg's strategy has become clearer in recent days. He is not relying on the evidence or the law, but on the jury. This is what could be termed the Lawrence O'Donnell factor. After Michael Cohen's disastrous testimony, even experts and hosts on MSNBC and CNN stated that his admissions and contradictions were devastating. Yet, MSNBC host O'Donnell declared that Cohen did wonderfully.
Willful Blindness
O'Donnell's response reflects the greatest threat to the Trump team. He displayed a kind of willful blindness; a refusal to acknowledge even the most shocking revelations in the trial. If some jurors share O'Donnell's obsession with Trump, they could ignore glaring contradictions. They may have been raised in an echo chamber of news coverage, where they avoid conflicting facts and tailor their news to fit a narrative or viewpoint.
The Ultimate Jury Instruction
A jury of O'Donnell's peers would convict Trump even if the Angel Gabriel appeared at trial as a defense character witness. It is the ultimate jury instruction, not from the court, but from the community. With jurors returning to their normal lives for six days and attending holiday events, they will likely hear much social judgment and the need to "rebalance" the political ledger through this case.
What's your take?
This case raises many questions about the impartiality of the justice system and the influence of personal bias on a jury's decision. What are your thoughts on this matter? Share this article with your friends and let's get a conversation going. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, everyday at 6pm.
