Judge Merchan tells jurors they don't need to agree on 'unlawful means' to convict Trump

The 12-person jury in the New York criminal case against former President Donald Trump began deliberations on Wednesday following instructions on the law from acting Justice Juan Merchan, according to live updates from the courthouse.

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo previously toldBlaze News that the judge's jury instructions "may tilt the field against the defense," noting that it is "the last thing the judge could do to favor the prosecution."

'Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction.'

Trump is facing 34 state felony criminal charges for allegedly falsifying business records concerning 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, and 11 checks. Payments to Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, were recorded as $420,000 of legal expenses. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's team claimed that the payments made to Cohen were not legal expenses but reimbursements for a $130,000 settlement payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels, who claimed she had an affair with the former president.

Former federal prosecutor and former Trump attorney Jim Trusty previously told Blaze News that Merchan's jury instruction could significantly impact the case's outcome.

"There's a big difference between a judge saying that the government must prove that the entries were false and that President Trump knew, or should have known, about them," Trusty stated. "The other way you could say it is, the government has to prove that these entries that were made were false and that President Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt, was complicit in making these entries."

Merchan told jurors that Trump "is not required to prove that he is not guilty," nor is he "required to prove or disprove anything." He noted that Trump's decision not to testify in the case could not be used against him.

"It is not sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty," Merchan explained. "The people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime, including the defendant is the person who committed that crime. The burden of proof never shifts from the people to the defendant."

"If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged crime, you must find the defendant not guilty," he added. Merchan repeatedly told jurors that they are the "judges of the facts" of the case.

Jurors were informed that they cannot convict Trump based solely on Cohen's testimony because, under the law, he is an accomplice, Merchan explained.

Regarding the accusation that Trump falsified business records, the judge told jurors that to render a guilty verdict, "You must find beyond a reasonable doubt first that he solicited requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct and second that he did so with the state of mind required with the commission of the offense."

"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when with intent to defraud, which includes the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, he makes or causes a false entry in the records of a business enterprise," Merchan continued.

He stated that if the jurors find Trump guilty, they do not need to be unanimous on "whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or acted in concert with another, or both." Additionally, Merchan said jurors do not have to agree about the "unlawful" means, which could include violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, falsification of other business records, or violations of tax laws.

"You need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were … you may consider: violations of FECA, falsification of other business records, violation of tax laws," Merchan told jurors.

Legal expert Jonathan Turley wrote onX, "Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction. He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous."

Journalist Paul Ingrassia stated that Merchan's jury instructions "may be the broadest definition of a crime in history."

"Merchan is literally throwing the whole book at the jury. What authority does he have as a state court judge from a mediocre law school to opine on something as nuanced as federal election law? It's so intricate and complex that the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction -- and ordinarily preempts -- other courts from all federal election law-related issues," Ingrassia wrote onX.

Merchan concluded his instructions, and jurors left to begin deliberations early Wednesday afternoon.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!