Trump jury deliberations begin
Hugo Lowell
Donald Trump’s case is now with the jury, which will have decide unanimously whether Trump made or caused the falsification of business records with the intent to commit a second crime.
The prosecution’s case is that the second crime was a violation of New York election law, which makes it a crime to “promote the election of any person to public office”.
The jury, per the instructions, does not have to be unanimous on what unlawful means Trump used to violate election law – whether it was a campaign contribution limit violation, whether it was a tax laws violation, or whether other business records were falsified to cover up the crime.
Key events
Jury begins deliberations
The jury was instructed to start deliberating just before 11:30am ET and left the courtroom.
Judge Juan Merchan sent jurors back into the jury room to start deliberating.
Two more jurors are going to return to his courtroom for instructions on how to use a laptop with evidence during deliberations.
Two jurors have volunteered to be shown how to use a laptop that contains evidence in the case.
Judge concludes instructions on the law
Judge Juan Merchan told jurors “that concludes my instructions on the law.”
He’s called both sides to the bench.
Judge Juan Merchan is now going over general juror conduct rules.
“While you are here in the courthouse deliberating on the case, you will be kept together in the jury room,” Merchan said.
Lunch will be provided.
If you have a cell phone or another electronic device, please give it to a court officer to hold…throughout deliberations.
Each juror, Mechan said, can have their view heard by other jurors.
During your deliberations, you must discuss the case only among yourselves.
Merchan said said that the plan is to work until 4.30pm ET but even if they did work late, it likely wouldn’t go beyond 6pm.
Judge tells jury verdict must be unanimous
Your verdict, on each count you consider, on either guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. That is, each and every juror must agree to it.
Judge Juan Merchan continues:
You should not surrender an honest view of the evidence simply because you want the trial to end or because you’re outvoted.
Judge Juan Merchan is now explaining the difference between motive and intent.
“Motive, however, is not an element of the crimes charged – therefore, the people are not required to prove a motive for the commission of the charged crimes,” Merchan said.
Nevertheless, evidence of a motive, or lack of a motive, may be considered by the jury.
“The person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious effort or purpose is to do so,” Judge Juan Merchan said.
Again, he said, this doesn’t have to be a specific person or entity.
A general intent to defraud any person or entity suffices.
Judge Juan Merchan is now going through the counts with which Donald Trump is charged.
(Recall: each count pertains to a specific business record. During the trial, prosecutors provided a chart.)
Merchan is now going over definitions of words and phrases used in the law – enterprise, records, intent, etc.
Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions to the jury regarding election law means that basically, some jurors could think that Donald Trump violated federal election law, and others could think that he was violating tax laws with his puffed up repayment to Michael Cohen.
They don’t have to agree on how, specifically, he violated state election law – but, if they are to find guilty, they do have to unanimously agree that he did.
Judge Juan Merchan is now explaining the New York election law that Donald Trump is accused of violating.
Merchan says the jury need to be unanimous in determining whether he broke this state election law but they do not need to be unanimous in how, specifically, he broke the campaign law.
Judge Juan Merchan is now going over how jurors can determine whether a defendant had the intent to commit a crime.
In doing so you may consider the person’s conduct and all of the circumstances surrounding that conduct … what if anything did the person do, or say … what result, if any, followed the conduct, and was that result the necessary, natural, and probably consequence of that conduct.
“A general intent to defraud any person or entity suffices,” Merchan says of what jurors can consider when weighing whether the defendant had an intent to defraud.