Image: BBC
In the Manhattan Hush Money case involving Donald Trump, Judge Merchan informed the attorneys, for both sides, of a social media post claiming that one of the jurors who found the former president guilty might have discussed the result two days prior to its announcement.
Table of Contents
What Does the Judge Merchan Letter Entail?
The brief letter from New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to Manhattan District Attorney Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass and Trump’s principal defence attorney Todd Blanche is brief, simply informing them of a comment made on the state court system’s Facebook page.
The letter says the Court became aware of a comment posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page.
Merchan left out of his letter any assessment of the posting’s authenticity or declaration of whether or not he thinks Anderson is a real person or even a relative of one of the jurors. Furthermore, he did not clarify if the posting he described as “one week old” was truly posted following the verdict, which was rendered on a Thursday, one week and one day before his letter. Merchan did not clarify if any actions were being taken by court officials to look into or remedy it.
The idea that the poster was connected to a juror and had knowledge of an impending verdict was quickly dismissed by a few journalists and former prosecutors.
What is the Infamous Post?
In the comment, the user, ‘Michael Anderson,’ states that his cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted. He then thanked “folks” for all their hard work with multiple exclamations.
The alleged poster seems to be elated with the outcome, as evidenced by including the party and heart emojis in the post. Merchan stated that the comment, which is now categorised as one week old, was in response to a standard UCS notice that was posted on May 29, 2024, concerning oral arguments in a similar case before the court’s Appellate Division.
What are the Speculations by U.S. Officials?
Someone identifying himself as Michael Anderson admitted to being “a professional sh*tposter,” or someone who likes to use social media posts to cause trouble, “derail discussions or cause the biggest reaction with the least effort,” according to a post made by MSNBC legal correspondent Katie Phang on X.
Merchan was “smart to advise the parties” on the matter at hand, according to former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance. Vance writes, the record will be clear if someone posts without any basis, as it seems, and if there is something to it, it’s good to get it out & do justice.
Why is a clean record important? Considering that Trump will bring up this in his appeal to ask for a reversal,” Vance wrote. “Now, both sides have notice of this issue & there’s an opportunity to get all of the details & facts out so that if there is nothing to this, it won’t affect the appeal.”
Following the publication, several Trump fans quickly spread the word to assert—without providing any supporting documentation—that Trump wasn’t given a fair trial.
In a post on X, the previous Twitter platform, right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer attached a screenshot of Merchan’s letter and stated that the news meant Trump “could now be entitled to a mistrial because the jury pool was tainted and compromised.”
Strong Trump supporter and Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia stated on X that the event implied that “the fix was in from the beginning” for Trump. Sen. Mike Lee of the Utah GOP called it “Mistrial fodder” on X.
