Toward the end of April of 2024, as the Trump “hush money” trial brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and presided over by Judge Merchan began, George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley called out what he saw as a “reversible error” in how the jury had been instructed as regards the payment allegedly made to Daniels and what it shows.
As background, DA Bragg alleges that Trump violated federal election law when he made the payment and recorded it as a legal expense rather than a campaign donation, which Bragg alleges would have been more appropriate, and that the failure to properly record the alleged campaign contribution is a violation of the federal election law.
That then led to what Turley alleged was the reversible error made by Judge Merchan in the case. Such is what he told “Fox and Friends” co-host Ainsley Earhardt when commenting on the case and explaining the error that could lie at the root of what is ongoing in the courtroom.
He said, explaining the jury instructions and error, “I got to tell you, I think this judge may have already committed reversible error. He could try to amend it, he could try to change it in his instructions, but that jury has now been told repeatedly that there are federal election crimes here, strongly suggesting that the payment to Stormy Daniels did violate federal election laws. That’s just not true.”
Turley also commented on Michael Cohen’s odd role in the case, saying, “Michael Cohen is literally going to tell that jury, ‘Please send my client to jail for following my legal advice.’ All of the stuff that they are talking about, he set up, he structured this and told his client that, ‘we could do this.’” He added, “It’s a bizarre moment.”
Watch Turley discuss that here:
Before the case began, Turley had suggested that there was a way for the Trump team to gain an advantage, saying, “The second issue involves a fairly standard motion that occurs when you believe that the jury may not agree that the big ticket item of a charge, the felonies, is proven, and you want the court to give an instruction saying you can always convict on a lesser included offense – in this case a misdemeanor.”
He continued, “Now, sometimes the defense doesn’t want to do that. Sometimes they just want to leave the jury with the cliff option, thinking that they don’t want to go over the cliff so they’ll go ahead and acquit. But many times, this works in favor of the defense. For Trump, there could be personal resistance to even suggesting a possible misdemeanor conviction, but politically and legally, it would be a very significant advantage for him.”
More recently, Turley alleged that DA Bragg is nowhere close to proving what he needs to, saying, “Bragg first has to show [Judge Juan] Merchan that someone claimed to have evidence directly tying Trump to an intentional fraudulent scheme to conceal a crime. Thus far, Bragg is not even close. Indeed, many of his witnesses helped Trump more than they hurt him on the actual charges.”
"*" indicates required fields