Questions have surfaced regarding the jury in former President Donald Trump’s New York City hush money trial after the presiding judge flagged a post to social media alleging that a juror had spoken about Trump’s verdict before it was handed down.
According to New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s letter, which was sent to Trump lawyer Todd Blanche and Manhattan District Attorney Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, a comment was left on the New York State Unified Court System’s Facebook page by a user under the name “Michael Anderson,” who wrote, “My cousin is a juror and says Tump is getting convicted. Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!”
The comment was in response to a post by the court on May 29, a day before the former president was convicted of 34 felony counts in connection to hush money paid to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Merchan wrote that as of Friday, Anderson’s comment was “labeled as one week old.”
Justin Lane – Pool/Getty Images
It is unclear if Anderson is related to one of the 12 jurors who served on Trump’s case, or if the comment was posted online prior to the former president’s conviction on May 30. Several Trump supporters suggested on social media that the comment was grounds for a mistrial.
“The comment was made on May 29, 2024, days [sic] 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,” conservative activist Laura Loomer wrote in a post to X, formerly Twitter, along with a screenshot of Merchan’s letter. “This is further evidence that President Trump didn’t receive a fair trial!”
“Enough with this bull**** case,” posted Monica Crowley, assistant press secretary for the Treasury Department under the Trump administration. “Mistrial. No retrial. Toss the ‘conviction.'”
GOP Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia wrote in a post to X, formerly Twitter, in response to Newsmax’s report on Merchan’s letter: “The fix was in from the beginning.”
“If true, this is even further proof President Trump never had a chance of being innocent,” she added. “It was a sham trial from the beginning and the ‘guilty’ verdict came down from the Deep State and ‘the Big Guy.'”
Utah GOP Senator Mike Lee also reacted to reports, writing to X, “Mistrial fodder.”
Legal experts, however, have questioned the validity of the comment to Facebook and if it was in fact made before Trump’s guilty verdict. Attorney and MSNBC commentator Katie Phang wrote on X, “Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the post is a week old, per Judge Merchan’s letter, then it was posted *after* Thursday’s verdict, right?”
Phang also shared screenshots of the Facebook profile for Anderson, a self-described “professional s*** poster.”
“Assuming this is the same ‘Michael Anderson,’ I don’t think that the post is real,” Phang wrote.
Attorney Andrew Weissmann also responded to reports of Merchan’s letter, writing to X, “This happens in every high profile case I’ve seen.”
Legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance added that Merchan was “smart to advise the parties & hold a hearing on the record to resolve this. If it’s someone posting with no basis for it as it appears, the record will be clear … & if there’s something to it, good to get it out & do justice.”
“Why does a clear record matter? Because Trump will raise this on appeal to argue for reversal,” Vance wrote to X. “Now, both sides have notice of this issue & there’s an opportunity to get all of the details & facts out so that if there is nothing to this, it won’t affect the appeal.”
Newsweek sent an email requesting comment to Blanche and Steinglass Friday evening.
Attorney Neama Rahmani told Newsweek Friday that defense lawyers typically can’t use jury conversation as a reason for seeking a new trial.
“Jury deliberations are sacred, and the defense usually can’t use juror discussions as a basis for a new trial or to appeal, even if the jurors misunderstood the facts or the law,” Rahmani said via email.
“One exception, however, is if outside influences are brought into the jury deliberation room,” he added. “That may be a basis for a new trial.”
Rahmani added: “The burden for a new trial is high, though. The defense must show both an improper outside influence and prejudice.”
“A stray comment on social media is not enough for a new trial,” he wrote.
Update 05/07/24, 7:32 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information and background.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
