Insight: Analyzing the Trump Jury Discussions

Editor’s Note: Norman Eisen, a CNN legal analyst and editor of “Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial,” shares his own views in this commentary. He previously served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment and trial of then-President Donald Trump. For more opinions, visit CNN.

"It's time to start the most important part of your jury duty: deliberations."

TRUMP TRIAL DIARY

Join CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen as he shares his observations from former President Donald Trump's Manhattan criminal trial. Follow along with this CNN Opinion series to catch up on previous entries.

Trump’s fate now hinges on these three questions

Trump’s defense ends on one disastrous witness

After receiving instructions from Justice Juan Merchan, the 12 jurors in Donald Trump's Manhattan trial took their responsibility seriously. They were tasked with determining whether the former American president is guilty of a crime, making them the first jury in the United States' 235-year history to face such a significant question. As the day came to a close, it was evident that they were deliberating carefully, as evidenced by multiple requests from the jury room.

The judge's detailed legal instructions, lasting 80 minutes, focused on the case's laws, charges, and evidence evaluation, with no mention of Trump's presidential status. However, the defendant's identity will undoubtedly influence the jury's discussions as they convene in a jury room on the 15th floor of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse.

The jury room is simple, containing a plain table with 12 seats, a water cooler, restrooms, and little else. Yet, the atmosphere will be charged with significance as these twelve Americans weigh Trump's guilt or innocence, with far-reaching personal implications for him and potentially for the upcoming presidential election and the course of history post-November.

Norm Eisen

Norm Eisen

Courtesy Norm Eisen

Trump is currently dealing with accusations of falsifying documents as part of an illegal scheme to hide the $130,000 payment given to adult film actress Stormy Daniels as hush money. This payment was intended to prevent her from speaking out about allegations of a sexual encounter between her and Trump (which Trump denies) before the 2016 presidential election.

The judge carefully explained to the jury the law they needed to consider in determining if Trump committed 34 felonies. These included one for each of the 11 invoices, 12 ledger entries, and 11 checks, nine of which were signed by Trump himself. The jury had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was responsible for the false entries on these documents, with the intent to deceive and potentially aid or hide another crime. This aligned with the key questions discussed in the closing arguments at the trial.

Next, the judge provided a clear breakdown of the legal principles that the jury needed to apply in reaching their verdict. For instance, he clarified that the alleged crime involved a conspiracy to influence the outcome of an election through unlawful means. The jury was presented with a variety of potential illegal actions based on the evidence, ranging from violations of campaign finance laws to the falsification of documents and tax-related offenses.

Merchan also shared with the jurors other rules that help them in their decision-making process. The most crucial rule is that if they have any reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt based on the evidence presented, they must acquit. However, if they are convinced of all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, they must convict.

These 12 New Yorkers are currently grappling with determining if they have any reasonable doubt regarding the case at hand. This concept of reasonable doubt is not only a fundamental aspect of our legal system but also plays a significant role in our democracy.

Chaired by the foreperson, the jury typically begins deliberations by gathering around a rectangular table and discussing their initial thoughts. Some jurors may be more talkative than others, while some may prefer to listen. It is possible that some jurors may remain silent until the foreperson or another juror proposes that they take turns sharing their opinions on the defendant's innocence or guilt on all or some of the charges, or if they are still undecided.

Former President Donald Trump gestures on the day the jury deliberates in the hush money trial filed against him in New York City on May 29.

Former President Donald Trump gestures on the day the jury deliberates in the hush money trial filed against him in New York City on May 29.

Jabin Botsford/Pool/Reuters

Related article

What to know about the first day of jury deliberations in the Trump hush money trial

Many times, but not always, the internal poll will take place at or near the beginning of their discussion. It is common for the vote to not be unanimous. This is when the jury truly begins their work: asking questions, sharing knowledge, and reaching out to the judge for legal or clarification purposes.

The back and forth among all 12 jurors as they strive to come to an agreement is the heart of the jury process, and juries approach it with great seriousness. I can attest to this from my experience trying cases before juries, interviewing jurors after deliberations, and serving on juries myself.

In my more than 30 years of legal experience, and after observing weeks of testimony in this courtroom, I have never encountered a more well-educated, attentive, and determined jury like this one. I am confident that they will carefully examine the evidence and thoughtfully consider how to interpret the law.

The jury's dedication was evident at 2:56 p.m. when they sent a note to the judge with four questions. They were seeking information about communications involving former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, particularly his direct interactions with Trump. These communications were related to the alleged "catch and kill" scheme, where negative stories about Trump were paid for and suppressed to benefit his campaign. Interpreting jury notes can be tricky, but this particular note seems like a troubling sign for the former president.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche, during his closing statement on Tuesday, encouraged the jury to consider different options before reaching a verdict on the alleged conspiracy. For example, they could determine if there was evidence of false documents or if Trump had any involvement in their creation. However, it appears that the jury was more focused on revisiting Pecker's testimony and quickly moved on to the suspected election conspiracy.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter for free!

Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Furthermore, instead of dismissing the testimony of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, as Blanche suggested, the focus is now on an independent witness who supports his claims. This was evident when the jury requested the testimony of both Pecker and Cohen regarding a crucial meeting, indicating their search for corroborating evidence highlighted by the prosecution. The details of the events discussed in the note to Merchan - such as the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting where the election conspiracy was allegedly planned, the hush money paid to former Playboy model Karen McDougal to facilitate the conspiracy, and Pecker's decision to not seek reimbursement for the McDougal payment - all point towards incriminating Trump, as previous trial records have shown.

While we were in court awaiting a response to the initial requests mentioned in the first note, the buzzer signaled another request from the jury. This time, they asked for the judge to review the jury instructions with them again, indicating the thoroughness and seriousness with which they are approaching their deliberations.

It's hard to say how long their discussions will last, but based on today's updates, it seems like it won't be a quick decision. And that's okay, especially for this particular defendant.

Editor's P/S:

The jury's careful deliberations in Donald Trump's Manhattan trial highlight the significance of the case and its potential implications. The jury's requests for information about key witnesses and their focus on the alleged election conspiracy suggest a thorough examination of the evidence and a determination to reach a just verdict.

The jury's attention to details, such as David Pecker's communications with Trump, and their request for a review of the jury instructions underscore their commitment to understanding the case thoroughly and applying the law correctly. The fact that they have not yet reached a decision indicates the complexity of the issues and the jurors' determination to deliberate thoughtfully. The public should respect the jury's process and await their verdict, which will undoubtedly be closely scrutinized and have a significant impact on the future of American politics and jurisprudence.