Jonathan Turley’s Explanation on Trump’s Jury

It was not surprising to find out that the jury of the Trump case, which involved his perfectly legal nondisclosure contract, was so confused by the crazy jury instructions that they asked to hear them over again. Jonathan Turley, GWU Law Professor, has been able to explain the situation and help us understand.

“Judge Merchan has erred on the side of inclusion. There was a subsequent request to add more and he approved it. There is another note from the jury,” he said at the start of a long thread on X/Twitter Thursday. “The jury is asking for instructions on count one and how to deal with evidence and the inference to be drawn from evidence. He will read pages 7-35.”

Turley continued:

Inference instructions are very interesting. Cohen’s focus would not have been on the material relating to corroboration or falsehood. The inference sections will focus on how much testimony can be interpreted. Cohen’s testimony was not able to prove that Trump knew or intended anything, but the prosecutors said they could infer this from his testimony. Pecker’s testimony also tied his actions to Trump and the election. The jury will have to decide how much they can infer from Trump Tower meeting accounts that he knew about and approved this effort. I should have said more than just good news. Cohen would have been the obstacle if you had followed the instructions for corroboration or perjury. It is important to consider the weight of these accounts. They are requesting mainly Pecker’s account, but they also want a passage from Cohen.

The jury raised the “rain metaphor” in their request for a readback. This metaphor suggests that certain facts, such as seeing umbrellas in the rain, can confirm other facts. Turley said that the defense had resisted prosecution’s broad inferences. The instructions say that you can infer from any fact which is proven. The rain metaphor is a good example. You may think it wasn’t raining when you went to bed, but the next morning you will see a soaked ground and people with umbrellas. The inference should not be speculative, but rather a natural conclusion based on a fact that has already been established.

Turley was also confused as to why Judge Merchan only read out the instructions for the jury, rather than providing them with a copy in writing. He said it “seemed so illogical and inefficient” in his opinion.

He continued, “It’s like going back to the oral tradition that existed before writing.” It is better than cave drawing, but the jurors will have to frantically jot down bits and pieces in their notes. Why? The judge and the counsel carefully considered and fought for these instructions. You would think the interests of justice were served by having the language in front of the jury while they deliberated. They have to be read to like toddlers, after waiting for a long time to enter the courtroom to decide what will be read. “It is completely counterintuitive to me.”

Turley concluded, “it’s hard to tell if the inference instructions that the jury wanted heard came up in relation to Cohen or to the evidence more generally in the case.”

Turley, on his blog (I don’t know whether that helps), also claimed that an acquittal was nearly impossible, and that Trump could only hope for a hung jury.

“Given that the trial was characterized by errors and a lack of instructions, an acquittal seems almost impossible. This leaves us with a hung or a guilty verdict. The framing of the case and the failure to protect defendant’s rights have undermined perceived legitimacy and any possible verdict,” writes he. Merchan left the final verdict to the jury, with Trump in a cage. We’ll see. I am still hopeful that some jurors won’t accept this manufactured criminal theory. “Canned hunts work well for trophies but not for trials.”