Burden of Proof

News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:

NEW YORK, NY — As the criminal trial involving former President Donald Trump winds to a close, the presiding judge instructed jurors that they don’t have to believe Trump is guilty to convict him.

The reminder from Judge Juan Merchan was issued to the jury as closing arguments began, with the judge clarifying that Trump doesn’t necessarily have to be guilty of a crime in order for the jury to find Trump guilty of a crime.

“Don’t get hung up on whether or not he’s ‘guilty’ of anything,” Judge Merchan instructed jurors. “Words like ‘guilty’ or ‘innocent’ or ‘evidence’ are really just for show, anyway. The important thing is that you listen to the closing arguments with an open mind and an unwavering commitment to handing down a guilty verdict. Remember, believing Trump is guilty is not important. Declaring him guilty — that’s what you’re all here for.”

As the trial neared its end, media, politicians, celebrities, and the general public all eagerly awaited the outcome. “Judge Merchan has run a very strict courtroom,” said one legal analyst. “Not allowing any type of shenanigans, reasoned arguments, or clear evidence to be present during the trial was a bold choice, and now he’s making sure the jurors are aware that believing Trump to be guilty has no bearing on convicting him of the charges. An impressive stance from a judge to say the least.”

Go here to read the rest.  As regular readers of this blog know, for my sins no doubt, I have been an attorney for 41 years.  During that time I have mounted hundreds of criminal defenses, ranging from misdemeanors to Class X felonies, and two cases as a  court appointed special prosecutor.  I have never seen a weaker criminal case than the Trump case.  That the case will go to the jury today is a tribute to the bias against Trump of the trial judge, spiritual descendant of Hitler’s Judge Karl Roland Freisler, who has committed reversible error after reversible error in his quest to have the jury convict Trump.  What will the jury do?  Two comments. 

If the Defendant’s name were Joe Biden, and I were on the jury, I would refuse to convict based on the dog’s breakfast of “evidence” that has been presented.  The case of the prosecution consists almost entirely of the testimony of Michael Cohen, a man who has been found to have committed perjury by a Federal judge, who was repeatedly caught out in new perjury while on the stand in this case and who admitted, apparently to the surprise of the prosecution, to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization.  I would not convict anyone of jay walking on the testimony of such a creature.  Beyond that, the prosecution has failed to show how the records as to the payments of the Trump Organization to Cohen, that were designated as legal expenses, were incorrect, and any connection by Trump with such a low level ministerial function.  The payments were so designated in 2017, and no evidence has been established proving any influence over the 2016 election by any of this.  I could give dozens of other examples.  Not only has the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, they have provided almost nothing that could be rightly called criminal evidence against Trump at all.  This is a complete failure of evidence case, and I have personally defended such in the past, which should have been dismissed by the Court after the State rested.

Second comment.  The State assumes that the bias of the jury will cause them to convict Trump, evidence be damned, and they may well be right in that.  However, juries can surprise you, both good and bad surprises.  We shall see.  However, I never bet against a biased jury doing the wrong thing.