Trump’s Lawyers Claim Juror Misconduct in New York Case

December 18, 2024 TruthUSA

The lawyers are at odds with the district attorney regarding the extent of information to be disclosed to the public.

Attorneys for President-Elect Donald Trump have accused the court of “serious juror misconduct” in his case concerning alleged falsified business records, which is currently unfolding in New York.

A letter dated Dec. 3 and released by the court on Dec. 17 indicated that Trump’s legal team claimed the misconduct “violated President Trump’s rights under both federal Constitution and New York law.”

The precise nature of the allegations remains ambiguous, and recently published discussions revealed that Trump’s attorneys are in disagreement with the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office regarding the volume of information to be revealed.

The correspondence surfaced after New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan issued an order and letter dismissing several claims made by the president-elect concerning immunity.

In a Dec. 16 letter, Merchan noted that the court had made extra redactions in addition to those from the various parties involved. He pointed out, however, that the allegations remain unsworn and that without a valid claim of juror misconduct filed in accordance with New York law, “this Court cannot permit the public filing of unsworn, and openly contested statements.”

“Doing so,” Merchan commented, “would jeopardize the safety of the jurors. … Should a legitimate claim be presented, these redactions will be reviewed again.”

He also indicated a hearing is necessary to assess the claims but noted that the defense is against holding such a hearing. “Allegations of juror misconduct should undergo thorough investigation,” Merchan stated. “However, this Court cannot adjudicate these claims based solely on hearsay and speculation.”

Trump’s legal team contended in their Dec. 3 letter that their client could not pursue appropriate remedies until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided on Trump’s petition to transfer the case to federal court.

On Dec. 5, Bragg’s office requested that the Dec. 3 letter and related documents remain sealed. The office implied that Trump’s attorneys may have distorted the details of the alleged misconduct.

“[T]he excerpts of the communications that counsel did share included a communication from [redacted] in which [redacted] clearly stated that counsel’s account of the alleged juror misconduct—the same misconduct outlined in the Dec. 3 letter—‘contains inaccuracies and omits additional information that I never shared,’” the letter asserted.

It further claimed that “[a]ccording to counsel’s own account of events, [redacted] dismissed several attempts to have [redacted] endorse the factual allegations that form the basis of the Dec. 3 letter.”

The letter charged Trump with failing to provide a sufficient record.

“Had the defendant submitted the sworn allegations necessary to file a legitimate motion … a hearing at which [redacted] allegations could be thoroughly investigated in a public setting might indeed be justified,” it stated.

“What he seeks instead is to introduce his unsworn, unverified, and at least partially inaccurate claims into the public sphere while simultaneously resisting any effort to properly assess them.”

A series of letters exchanged between the defense and the prosecution ensued, with Trump’s attorneys accusing Bragg’s office of attempting to conceal significant information. While they supported certain redactions, they expressed that they believed the scope of the prosecution’s requests was excessive and asserted that the public has a right to access criminal proceedings.

“These public access rights to criminal proceedings are crucial in promoting the fair administration of justice, fostering public confidence in the judicial system, allowing for public scrutiny of matters of tremendous public interest, and safeguarding the fundamental rights of the accused,” Trump’s attorneys remarked in a Dec. 9 letter addressed to Merchan.

Merchan’s Dec. 16 letter emphasized that the court “must weigh the conflicting interests of the public’s right to transparency of these proceedings against the genuine necessity to uphold the privacy and safety of the jurors.”

Bragg’s office also charged Trump on Dec. 9 with trying to erode public trust in the verdict. In May, a jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

In a post on TruthSocial on Dec. 17, Trump criticized Merchan’s rulings regarding immunity. He asserted that Merchan “completely disrespected the United States Supreme Court and its Historic Decision on Immunity.”

The president-elect claimed that the case itself is illegitimate, and that Merchan’s opinion “contradicts our Constitution, and, if allowed to persist, would signify the end of the Presidency as we know it.”

Merchan pointed out that Trump took too long or neglected to preserve objections to evidence, noting that information pertaining to both preserved and unpreserved arguments does not qualify for protection under the principle of presidential immunity.

The dispute arose as the Supreme Court declined on Dec. 16 a podcaster’s plea to lift the gag orders imposed on Trump in New York. Podcaster Joseph Nieman contended that his rights as a member of the media were being violated by these orders.

On TruthSocial, Trump expressed that “Merchan has such little regard for the Constitution that he is upholding an illegal gag order on me.”

Earlier this year, the New York Supreme Court’s First Appellate Division affirmed a gag order on Trump while stating that Merchan “properly determined that the petitioner’s public comments posed a substantial threat to the integrity of the testimonies of witnesses and potential witnesses in this case as well.”

Matthew Vadum and Jack Phillips contributed to this report.

Source link