JUST IN: Judge Merchan Reveals Shocking Development That Could Affect Trump Case

Judge Juan M. Merchan, presiding over the high-profile case against former President Donald Trump, has revealed a development that could significantly impact the outcome. This comes on the heels of Trump’s conviction by a Manhattan jury for falsifying business records related to the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal. Trump became the first U.S. president to be found guilty of a felony facing up to four years in prison, marking a historic moment.

“Dear Counsel: Today, the Court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page and which I now bring to your attention,” Merchan wrote. “In the comment, the user, ‘Michael Anderson,’ states: ‘My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted. Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!’”

The Facebook comment, now a week old, was brought to the court’s attention by Merchan on Friday, prompting an immediate review of its implications. The post responded to a routine UCS notice regarding unrelated oral arguments, yet its content directly referenced the Trump trial.

The case which gripped the nation saw Trump convicted on all 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business records. The charges stemmed from an alleged scheme to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to prevent her from disclosing an alleged affair before the 2016 election. Throughout the trial, Trump maintained his innocence, asserting that the trial was a politically motivated sham.

The revelation about a Facebook comment alleging a juror’s bias has significant implications for the Trump case. Firstly, it brings the integrity of the verdict into question. The comment suggests that a juror was convinced of Trump’s guilt before the official verdict, creating new concerns about juror impartiality. If it is proven that any juror had preconceived notions or was influenced by outside information, it could undermine the entire jury’s decision. This could lead to a mistrial or grounds for an appeal, as Trump’s legal team might argue that their client’s right to a fair trial was compromised.

Any potential juror misconduct could trigger an investigation into the jury selection and deliberation processes. This might involve interviewing jurors to determine the extent of any bias or external influence. Such an investigation could delay sentencing and prolong the legal proceedings. High-profile cases like this are closely scrutinized, and any hint of impropriety can lead to widespread skepticism about the fairness of the legal system. Trump, the presumptive GOP candidate, could use this development to bolster his claims of being unfairly targeted and galvanize his base.

“It was a rigged trial, it was a disgrace,” Trump said outside the courtroom after the ruling. “The real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people.” He continued to proclaim his innocence, saying, “We didn’t do a thing wrong. I am a very innocent man. We have a country that is in big trouble.”

Trump faced a barrage of charges brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The prosecution’s case hinged on proving Trump’s intent to disguise the payment to Daniels, which his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, claimed to have orchestrated using a home equity line of credit. Cohen, the prosecution’s star witness, testified that Trump directed him to “handle it” to avoid a potential scandal before the election. However, Trump’s defense team vehemently denied any directives were given to Cohen regarding the payment.

Post Views: 268