“Hello, I will now give you instructions about the law. » With these solemn words, Judge Juan Merchan addressed the twelve jurors, gathered Wednesday, May 29 in the Manhattan criminal court. At the end of twenty-one days of hearing, the time for deliberations has come.
Former president and candidate to become one again, Donald Trump, indicted for thirty-four counts of falsification of accounting documents, sees his penal fate entrusted to these citizens, for an indefinite period. Their identity is protected. Their biography, during the selection, was reduced to simple elements. Here they are locked in a room, without cell phones, with their blackened notebooks, at the crossroads of American legal and political history.
Seven men, five women. Over the past weeks, their slightest grin, smile, frown, sign of fatigue or frustration has been scrutinized. In the privacy of their ephemeral circle, they must now decide the guilt or innocence of the ex-president, in the only trial that will probably be held against him before the November election, against Joe Biden . If guilty, Judge Juan Merchan will have a whole range of possible sentences, including four years in prison. If unanimity is not obtained (hung jury), the trial will be declared void (mistrial). The public prosecutor can then request a new one.
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt”
For more than an hour Wednesday, Judge Juan Merchan offered a classic and indispensable lesson in criminal law. He reminded the jurors that they should in no case decide based on their opinions, their prejudices, their partisan views, but on the basis of the evidence and the law. The magistrate invited them to refrain from any speculation about the penalties incurred. He also emphasized that “the burden of proof can never pass from the prosecution to the accused. » “What does proof beyond reasonable doubt mean? continued the magistrate. The law recognizes that in matters of human affairs there is little that can be known with absolute certainty, which is therefore not required, but it is also insufficient to prove that an accused is “probably guilty” in a criminal case. »
The judge offered the jurors a form of toolbox, fundamental questions to ask and debate when evaluating the case. This notably involves the twenty prosecution witnesses and the two others invited by the defense. All that matters is the quality of the testimonies, not their number, said Juan Merchan. there is no “special formula” to evaluate these testimonies: we must proceed as in daily life, when we hear a story, summarized the magistrate.
You have 49.22% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.