Observations on the Trump Jury: Possible Outcomes in Their Deliberation Process

Observations on the Trump Jury: What Could Occur During Pondering Sessions

### TRUMP COURT TRIAL DIARY

CNN legal expert Norm Eisen is present at Donald Trump's Manhattan trial and records his observations for this series. Read previous installments:

The fate of Trump now depends on these three issues
Trump's defense concludes with a calamitous witness
Did Trump's defense manage to make their case against Michael Cohen?

After Justice Juan Merchan's statement, the 12 individuals making up the jury in Donald Trump's trial in Manhattan left on Wednesday to determine if the former US president is a criminal. They are the very first jury in the 235-year history of the United States to deal with such a significant question. And it became apparent during the day that they were taking their significant responsibilities very seriously.

Trump's presidential status was nowhere to be found in the lengthy legal directions provided by the judge in the morning, which covered the applicability of the law to the case, the charges, the evaluation of evidence, and more. However, it is likely that the identity of the defendant will weigh heavily on the jury's decision-making as they deliberate on the 15th floor of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse.

The jury rooms are simple, featuring a rectangular table and 12 seats, a water cooler, and separate male and female restrooms. But the deliberation room that will decide Trump's guilt or innocence will be loaded with significance as these 12 citizens decide the outcome of the trial with potentially severe consequences not only for him but also related to the upcoming presidential election and the evolution of history.

Trump is being charged with falsifying documents in connection with an alleged illegal payment plan to conceal the $130,000 hush money given to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The payment was made to keep her silent about alleged sexual relations (which Trump denies) from the 2016 presidential election.

The judge took time to detail the legal guidelines they must follow to determine if Trump committed 34 felonies, one for each of the 11 invoices, 12 ledger entries, and 11 checks (nine signed by Trump himself) at the center of the case. Merchan clarified that the jury must be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump "made or caused" the false entries on those documents, and that "he did so with the intent to deceive." (In other words, to lie) and "to commit or help cover up another crime." This corresponded to the three key evidentiary concerns that formed the closings, as detailed in yesterday's trial diary.

Merchan then provided a thorough explanation of the legal regulations the jury must apply to reach those conclusions. For example, he elaborated on the other crime alleged: a conspiracy to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” The judge went through the various potential illegal activities the jury could find based on the evidence — from campaign finance infractions to falsifying other documents to tax violations.

And Merchan also provided the jurors with the various rules they need to abide by. The most critical: If they have a reasonable doubt (an “honest doubt about the defendant’s innocence, for which there is a reason based on the nature and quality of the evidence”), they must acquit. If they are convinced of all the elements beyond this doubt (not all doubt, just the reasonable kind), they must convict.

Now, these 12 New Yorkers are trying to determine if they have this uncertainty or not - a foundational component of both the legal system and society.

Jury deliberations often start with them sitting together at the rectangular table, engaging in a conversation about how they feel as they enter the process. A few might be more vocal, while others may remain silent until the foreman or another juror suggests they go round and express whether they believe the defendant is innocent or guilty on all of the charges or some of them — or if they have not yet reached a conclusion.

Frequently, but not always, that poll happens at or around the beginning of their discussion. In addition, the vote is not typically unanimous. This is when the actual work of the jury begins: asking one another questions, learning from one another, and sending notes to the judge when they have a legal question or one about specific issues raised in the trial.

The back-and-forth as all 12 attempt to achieve consensus constitutes the essence of the jury's work, and juries take it very seriously. I say this based on my 30+ years of legal experience, having witnessed this trial for several weeks, and on my experience as a jury member myself.

In all my time as a lawyer and sitting in this courtroom during the trial, I have never encountered more well-educated, attentive, and determined jurors than this group. I am certain they will lead each other through a comprehensive analysis of the evidence while applying the law carefully.

At 2:56 pm, we received evidence of the claim when the jury sent a four-part note to the judge, asking for details about a sequence of conversations involving previous National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, containing his personal chats with Trump, concerning the so-called "catch and kill" scheme (which involved paying for and supressing demeaning tales about Trump) to allay his campaign. Although deciphering jury notes like a cup of tea leaves can be risky, I sense this message as a foreshadowing of trouble for the ex-president.

During Todd Blanche's closing remarks on Tuesday, he urged the jury to consider different alternatives before they ever touched upon the supposed conspiracy, like affirming the non-existence of false reports or that Trump did not partake in their creation. Instead, the jury appears to have bypassed these steps and moved on to the purported election conspiracy at the heart of the matter.

Furthermore, rather than brushing aside the testimony of Michael Cohen (leading to the case's dismissal), as Blanche suggested, the jury is concentrating on a secondary witness who corroborates Cohen's account. This is underlined by their inquiry for both Pecker and Cohen to testify about a vital rendezvous, implying they are searching for confirmation that the prosecution underlined. Additionally, the subjects mentioned in the note to Merchan - the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting where the alleged election conspiracy was born, the money spewed on former Playboy model Karen McDougal (who claimed to have an affair with Trump) to carry out the conspiracy, and Pecker ultimately receding from requesting reimbursement for the McDougal compensation - all seem to indict Trump, as previous trial notes have shown.

Whilst we sat in court anticipating the resolution of the inquiries, the buzzer sounded again - a sign that the jury had yet another demand. This time they asked the judge to re-read the jury instructions to them, a further sign of their cautiousness in the discussion.

The duration of their debates is yet unknown, but today's episodes indicate that it won't be a speedy process. However, it shouldn't be a swift judgment, regardless of the defendant - but most particularly not for this one.

Read also:

The jurors may have varying opinions on whether the evidence presented during Trump's trial in Manhattan is sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering their serious responsibilities and the potential consequences of their decision. After deliberating, they may express different opinions about whether Trump is innocent or guilty on some or all of the charges, reflecting the importance of reaching a unanimous consensus if possible, while respecting reasonable doubts.

Source: