Attorneys representing President-elect Trump have leveled accusations against a juror involved in his New York conviction, aiming to overturn the landmark guilty verdict. In a letter to Judge Juan Merchan that was unsealed on Tuesday, Trump’s legal team, comprising Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, asserted they possess “evidence of grave juror misconduct during the trial.”
They claimed, “The jury in this case was not anywhere near fair and impartial.” However, prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office dismissed these allegations as “untested” and “unsworn,” suggesting that they are an attempt to erode public confidence in the judicial process.
Accusations of unfair jury practices emerge as Trump seeks to challenge his guilty verdict
Much of the details regarding the allegations were redacted and kept from public scrutiny. In a separate communication, Merchan explained that the redactions were implemented to protect the anonymity of the jurors and to maintain the integrity of the case. Prosecutors indicated that Trump’s legal team’s claims were based on email exchanges with an unidentified whistleblower.
While the complete email exchanges were not included in the letter, excerpts reportedly revealed that the whistleblower stated the defense’s portrayal of events “contains inaccuracies and does not include additional information that I never shared.”
The whistleblower chose not to support the defense’s narrative and halted further communication with Trump’s attorneys, according to prosecutors. Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass noted, “As such, it cannot be determined which of the allegations counsel believe they heard are accurate. This is precisely why the law requires sworn allegations of fact to seek dismissal on a claim of juror misconduct.”
In a statement to The Associated Press, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung suggested that “partisan political motivations infected nearly every aspect of this Witch Hunt, including the jury room,” insinuating that a juror may have voiced political opinions. The Hill has sought further comment on the matter.
Prosecutors have raised concerns about the defense’s intentions in bringing up these claims in a letter to the judge without submitting a formal motion to dismiss the case or opposing a hearing regarding the issue.
Trump’s attorneys contended that holding a hearing would necessitate “extensive, time-consuming and invasive fact finding,” arguing it would constitute the kind of “extended proceeding” that the presidential immunity doctrine prohibits.
They emphasized that such proceedings would impose disruptive and constitutionally unacceptable resource burdens on President Trump during the transition and after his inauguration. In a letter dated December 16 addressed to both parties, Merchan stated that he could not permit the public filing of “unsworn and admittedly contested statements” without a formal claim being presented.
“Allegations of juror misconduct should be thoroughly investigated,” Merchan remarked. “However, this Court is prohibited from deciding such claims on the basis of mere hearsay and conjecture.”
These allegations of juror misconduct arise as Merchan deliberates on a separate defense motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that Trump is now president-elect. Recently, the judge determined that the case meets the Supreme Court’s new standards concerning presidential immunity.
Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money agreement with adult film actress Stormy Daniels to conceal an alleged affair prior to the 2016 presidential election. He has pledged to appeal the conviction.
