OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The judge who presided over former President Donald Trump’s hush money case in Manhattan has made a startling revelation that many legal experts say could directly alter the outcome of the guilty verdict.
“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,” Judge Juan Merchan wrote in a letter to District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecutor and Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead attorney. “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, which is now a week old, was brought to the court’s attention by Merchan on Friday, prompting an immediate review of its implications. The post was a response to a routine UCS notice about unrelated oral arguments, but its content directly referenced the Trump trial.
Al Baker, a spokesman for the New York State Office of Court Administration, told the New York Post that “As appropriate, the Court informed the parties once it learned of this online content.” The Post went on to note that it appears the comment has since been deleted. It’s unclear whether Anderson’s Facebook comment will affect the guilty verdict or if he actually discussed the case with a juror.
The user, who goes by the name of Michael Anderson, is self-described as a “professional s*** poster” in the profile bio.
The revelation of a Facebook comment alleging a juror’s bias has significant implications for the Trump case. For one, it calls the integrity of the verdict into question. The comment implies that a juror was convinced of Trump’s guilt before the official verdict, raising concerns about juror impartiality. If it is proven that any juror had preconceived notions or was influenced by external information, it could undermine the entire jury’s decision. This could potentially lead to a mistrial or provide 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 prompt an investigation into the jury selection and deliberation processes. This might involve interviewing jurors to ascertain the extent of any bias or external influence. Such an investigation could delay sentencing and extend the legal proceedings. High-profile cases like this one are subject to intense scrutiny, and any suggestion of impropriety can lead to widespread skepticism about the fairness of the legal system. Trump, the presumptive GOP candidate, could use this development to reinforce his claims of being unfairly targeted and to galvanize his base.
Several of Trump’s allies, including members of Congress, responded to the revelation. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) shared a link to a Post Millennial’s report on the revelation to X Friday evening, writing, “Mistrial fodder.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) reacted to reports on her personal X account, writing, “The fix was in from the beginning. If true, this is even further proof President Trump never had a chance of being innocent. It was a sham trial from the beginning and the ‘guilty’ verdict came down from the Deep State and ‘the Big Guy.'”
Former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis posted a copy of Merchan’s letter to her X account, writing: “A juror in the Trump trial may have violated confidentiality DURING the trial. This is a basis for a MISTRIAL.”
Conservative commentator and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk noted on his X account that “nothing has been proven yet. But if this is true, and a juror was revealing to others that they planned to convict during deliberations, that is juror misconduct and grounds for a mistrial. Fascinating turn of events!”
