The Trump-a-verse is currently inflamed claiming the judge has instructed the jury their verdict does not have to be unanimous. They claim this is a violation of the United States Constitution, which by Supreme Court precedent, does require unanimous verdicts in criminal cases.
The judge's instruction to the jury is well founded in New York case law related to this statute. Starting with the basics, Trump is charged with causing the falsification of business records. The statute then amplifies that to a felony if the falsification was for the purpose of concealing another crime. Notably, the other crime does not even have to have been committed. It is sufficient if the purpose was the concealment of possible criminal activity.
To be clear, the jury must unanimously find that Trump caused the falsification of business records.The jury must also also unanimously find Trump did so for the purpose of concealing another crime. What they don't have to unanimously agree on is what that other crime was, so long as they agree there was some other crime he was trying to conceal by falsifying the business records.
The prosecution has outlined three potential law violations Trump might have been trying to conceal:
1. Federal campaign finance law.
2. State election fraud law.
3. Tax records law.
So just creating a hypothetical, suppose four jurors believe Trump intended to conceal #1, but not #2 or #3. Four more jurors believe Trump intended to conceal #2 but not #1 or #2, and four more believe Trump intended to conceal #3 but not #2 or #3. For this hypo also assume all the jurors separately agree that Trump caused the falsification of business records.
So, simple logic question. In this scenario do all the jurors agree that Trump caused the falsification of business records to conceal another crime? Yes, or no?
The answer is obviously "yes." They may not agree on which crime he sought to cover up, but they all agree that Trump caused the falsification of business records to conceal another crime, which is all a direct reading of the statute requires.
This was an interpretation previously litigated in another application of the statute that went through the New York appellate courts, and Judge Merchan is bound by it. There is nothing weird about this. While a jury must unanimously conclude a defendant committed a crime, they are not generally required to have unanimity on exactly how the defendant committed the crime.
