Newsweek just reported that a Trump trial’s juror’s cousin may have been contacted by the juror about the guilty verdicts that were to come. This has caused supercharged MAGA derangement symptoms, i.e., this proves the trial and convictions were politically motivated shams. Some have called for a mistrial to be immediately declared, which I’ll discuss below.
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 Trump 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.”
This was quickly shown to be a hoax by none other than the poster himself:
This is still developing, and who knows what will result, but the calls for a mistrial appear to be futile under New York law:
New York Consolidated Laws, Criminal Procedure Law – CPL § 280.10 Motion for mistrial
At any time during the trial, the court must declare a mistrial and order a new trial of the indictment under the following circumstances:
1. Upon motion of the defendant, when there occurs during the trial an error or legal defect in the proceedings, or conduct inside or outside the courtroom, which is prejudicial to the defendant and deprives him of a fair trial. When such an error, defect or conduct occurs during a joint trial of two or more defendants and a mistrial motion is made by one or more but not by all, the court must declare a mistrial only as to the defendant or defendants making or joining in the motion, and the trial of the other defendant or defendants must proceed; [emphasis added]
2. Upon motion of the people, when there occurs during the trial, either inside or outside the courtroom, gross misconduct by the defendant or some person acting on his behalf, or by a juror, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the people’s case. When such misconduct occurs during a joint trial of two or more defendants, and when the court is satisfied that it did not result in substantial prejudice to the people’s case as against a particular defendant and that such defendant was in no way responsible for the misconduct, it may not declare a mistrial with respect to such defendant but must proceed with the trial as to him;
3. Upon motion of either party or upon the court’s own motion, when it is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law.
While slightly ambiguous, the text can be read to indicate that the motion must be brought during the trial, and after the verdict has been reached, but not following the court’s announcement of the verdict which occurred on March 30. We’ll see, though, should this incident be proved to be not a hoax. Then there ought to be a defendant’s remedy, if not a mistrial, then in an appeal. But – egads! – what next in the ongoing Trump saga?!