Judge Merchan ‘Tipped His Hand’ on Key Issue: Attorney

The judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s hush-money trial in Manhattan “tipped his hand” on an important issue, a former federal prosecutor said.

On May 21, Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, wrote in her Civil Discourse blog about a comment Judge Juan Merchan made while discussing jury instructions. A judge gives such instructions to explain the laws a jury must use to decide a case.

Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to a $130,000 payment made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels to keep an alleged affair between them secret ahead of the 2016 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty and has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels.

A hush-money payment is not illegal, and under New York law, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanor unless it is done to conceal another crime, in which case it can be a felony.

Merchan said the prosecution did not need to prove that Trump committed additional crimes, like campaign finance or tax violations. Instead, it must show that Trump intended to commit or conceal these crimes.

“You must remember, the People are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, that reduces the need or the burden to define every term and every phrase,” Merchan said, per Vance’s blog. Merchan made the comment while discussing whether the defense could call an expert in campaign finance law.

Newsweek has contacted Trump’s attorney for comment via email outside normal working hours.

In another blog post, Vance used the analogy of burglary to explain the jury instructions.

“If I enter your home without permission, that’s trespass, a misdemeanor. But, if I do it with the intent to commit another crime while I’m there, it’s burglary, a felony. The false records violation works the same way,” she wrote.

She added that prosecutors only needed to prove that Trump intended to commit a crime, not whether he actually did.

“There is no mini-trial on the crime the defendant ‘intends to commit,'” Vance wrote. “The People have to establish the intent to commit it, not the crime itself.”

To prove their case, prosecutors must show that Trump improperly recorded the payment to influence the 2016 election.

The defense contends that the payment was made to protect Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, from embarrassment.

The prosecution rested its case Monday, following days of testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer.

Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee, has made history as the first former U.S. president to stand trial in a criminal case.