Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have judges instructed juries to interpret Trump's statements in incitement or obstruction counts?
Executive summary
Judges in Trump-related trials have repeatedly told jurors that they must reach unanimous verdicts on guilt but may sometimes not need unanimity about which specific unlawful means produced that guilt — a nuanced distinction that has been widely misreported and weaponized in partisan messaging [1] [2]. In the Manhattan hush‑money case, Judge Juan Merchan required unanimity that a false business record was created and that it was made with intent to conceal another crime, but told jurors they did not have to agree unanimously on which particular secondary crime (e.g., a federal or state election law violation) was the one being concealed [3] [1].
1. How judges framed unanimity vs. theories of wrongdoing
Judges have emphasized that jurors must be unanimous on the core elements of each charged count — for example, that the defendant made or caused a false entry and acted with the requisite intent — while explaining that jurors need not all agree on the exact underlying unlawful means that gave rise to that intent when multiple predicate offenses are alleged. In Merchan’s instruction to the Manhattan jury, he said jurors “must conclude unanimously” that a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election occurred, but they “need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were,” a legal distinction repeatedly cited in reporting [1] [3].
2. Where confusion and misinformation took hold
Conservative media and social posts flattened that nuance into the false claim that jurors “did not need to be unanimous to convict,” prompting threats against Judge Merchan and fueling public confusion. Fact‑checks and multiple outlets corrected that assertion: Merchan required unanimous findings on the essential elements of each count; he only allowed non‑unanimity on which specific unlawful means among alternatives jurors believed motivated the falsification [4] [2].
3. Why the nuance matters legally and politically
The legal wrinkle matters because statutes and conspiratorial theories sometimes list multiple possible predicate crimes that could supply the “intent” element. Allowing jurors to agree on guilt even if they choose different predicates prevents a single juror’s preference for one precise legal theory from deadlocking a verdict when the core facts are agreed. Critics argue this raises constitutional concerns about unanimity and has been challenged as potentially flawed in other contexts [5]. Supporters say it reflects long‑standing practice when alternative means are genuinely equivalent.
4. How judges instructed jurors to weigh intent and causation
Judges in these trials stressed that intent is a required element — mere knowledge of wrongdoing is not enough — and instructed jurors that being present or aware does not automatically make a defendant a conspirator. Merchan told jurors that prosecutors must prove intent, and that simply having knowledge of a conspiracy does not make someone liable; similarly, jurors were warned not to convict based on bias or the criminal history of other witnesses [6] [3].
5. Practical limits on jurors’ access to instructions and documents
Courts in New York traditionally do not give jurors written copies of the judge’s instructions during deliberations; judges read them aloud and jurors may request repeats but cannot take written text into the jury room. That procedural rule contributed to public confusion when the spoken instructions were misreported online [7] [8].
6. Alternative viewpoints and unresolved questions
Some legal commentators contend that Merchan’s 55‑page instructions and the allowance of non‑unanimity on predicate crimes raise legitimate constitutional questions about unanimity rights and could be grounds for appeal if courts find the approach flawed [5]. Other observers emphasize that fact‑based unanimity on core elements — the practical linchpin of most verdicts — was preserved in the judge’s charge and that public misreading drove political backlash, not the instructions themselves [1] [2].
7. What reporting does not say (limits of available sources)
Available sources do not mention any instruction in these trials that jurors may lawfully convict without unanimous agreement on the essential elements of a charge; instead, coverage documents the specific limited non‑unanimity about which predicate unlawful means applied [1] [2]. Sources do not provide a definitive appellate ruling here overturning the instructional approach — debates about its constitutionality are reported, but final appellate resolution is not contained in the provided reporting [5].
Bottom line: judges have tried to preserve unanimous findings on core criminal elements while accommodating complex statutes that list multiple alternative predicates; that legal nuance was widely misrepresented, creating misinformation and political fallout [1] [2].