Jury Resumes Deliberations in Trump’s Hush Money Trial
The jury in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial is set to continue deliberations after requesting to review crucial testimony and instructions from the judge. The 12-person jury deliberated for about 4 1/2 hours on Wednesday without reaching a verdict. Their request to revisit testimony from a tabloid publisher and Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer, as well as part of the judge’s instructions, shows their dedication to understanding the details of the case.
The length of the deliberations remains uncertain, and a guilty verdict would have significant implications for Trump’s political aspirations. As the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a conviction would present a legal setback as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Conversely, an acquittal would be a major win for him and could strengthen his position on the campaign trail. However, if the jury fails to reach a unanimous decision after days of deliberation, a mistrial could be declared.
Trump appeared pessimistic after leaving the courtroom, describing the trial as “very unfair.” He refrained from testifying in his own defense, a factor the judge emphasized jurors should not consider. Throughout the deliberations, Trump remained active on social media, expressing his discontent with the trial and sharing quotes from legal and political commentators who support his case.
The charges against Trump involve 34 counts of falsifying business records at his company, related to an alleged scheme to conceal damaging stories during his 2016 presidential campaign. The felony charge stems from reimbursements made to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, following a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels. The prosecution argues that Trump misrepresented these reimbursements as legal expenses to hide their connection to hush money.
Trump maintains his innocence, claiming that the payments were for legitimate legal services and denying any extramarital sexual encounter with Daniels. To secure a conviction, the jury must unanimously agree that Trump created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, with the intent of committing or concealing another crime. The specific unlawful act in question is a violation of a New York election law prohibiting conspirators from promoting or preventing a person’s election to a public office through unlawful means.
While unanimity is required regarding the unlawfulness of Trump’s actions, the jurors do not need to agree on the exact nature of the unlawful act. The jury consists of a diverse group of Manhattan residents with various professional backgrounds who have shown great interest in the trial proceedings, taking notes and closely observing witness testimonies.
During closing arguments, the prosecution emphasized the burden of proving Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not need to establish his innocence but rather relies on at least one juror finding that the prosecution has failed to sufficiently prove their case.
In their initial communication with the court, the jurors requested to review testimony from Cohen and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker regarding a meeting in 2015 with Trump at Trump Tower. Pecker testified that the meeting marked the beginning of a scheme to identify and suppress damaging stories about Trump before publication. The jurors also want to hear Pecker’s account of a phone call from Trump discussing a rumor about another outlet attempting to purchase former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story of an alleged affair with Trump.
Pecker testified that he believed Trump was aware of McDougal’s claims and advised him to buy the story to prevent its release. He further revealed that he called off an agreement to sell the rights to McDougal’s story to Trump in October 2016, which angered Cohen. These testimonies provide key insights into the alleged scheme and its connection to Trump’s campaign.
As deliberations continue, the jury’s meticulous approach to reviewing testimony and instructions indicates their commitment to reaching a fair and well-informed decision. The outcome of this trial will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for Trump’s political future, regardless of whether it ends in a conviction or an acquittal.
