So without the jury unanimously finding that Trump employed any of these "unlawful means", they cannot unanimously find him guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means.
Without that, they cannot unanimously find that he intended to defraud anyone involving commission of any "other crime", and that destroys any basis upon which they could have (unanimously) found that he "falsified business records in the first degree"... and so the whole loosely-knit sweater unravels.
Then there is the absolutely foundational question of what exactly Merchan meant when he told the jurors that they did not need to unanimously agree in determining by which alleged "unlawful means" Trump intended to commit this "other crime" (of unlawfully promoting his own election).
What does "not unanimous" mean? Was it enough for eleven jurors to find that Trump intended to accomplish his "other crime" by any particular one of the three "unlawful means" listed? How about ten? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? How about just a single one? How about zero? All of these potential outcomes are encompassed within the meaning of "not unanimous." There were no traditional procedural or substantive safeguards.
As it is, each juror effectively stepped into the jury room with the equivalent of an instruction to follow a precisely marked, convoluted trail on the jury room floor while remaining blindfolded at all times. The astonishing fact that at the end of this ordeal each juror confidently affirmed that Trump was "guilty as charged" on all thirty-four charges speaks volumes, if not entire library systems.
This jury charge - and therefore the verdict - is a legal atrocity. It will be discussion-fodder for future law school students for generations, maybe even centuries, to come - if we are lucky enough to still have a legal system by that time.
See you next time.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
