Former President Donald Trump, recently convicted of 34 felony counts, had privately pinned his hopes on a specific juror to derail the unanimous consensus required for a conviction in his Manhattan criminal trial, Rolling Stone reported. Despite Trump’s outward bravado regarding the trial, he believed that one juror, referred to as “my juror” by him and his advisors, exhibited body language that suggested a possible inclination toward the defense’s arguments.
This hope was anchored on subtle cues like warm smiles and certain tics observed during the trial, which Trump’s team interpreted as signs that the juror might favor a hung jury, thereby helping Trump evade a conviction. The identities of the jurors speculated to be “Trump’s juror” ranged from an investment banker who favored Truth Social for news to a retired wealth manager from a traditionally conservative area, indicating Trump’s legal team’s scrutiny of potential sympathies within the jury.
However, as deliberations unfolded, the reality within the jury room seemed to shift. An advisor expressed concerns to Rolling Stone about the juror’s ability to withstand pressure from other jurors, fearing that the juror’s resolve might not be as firm as needed for a deadlock. But after the jury delivered its unanimous verdict on Thursday evening, a separate Trump adviser told Rawling and Suebsaeng that “the ‘Trump juror’ wasn’t Trumpy enough I guess!”
Ultimately, these hopes were unmet as the jury reached a unanimous verdict, convicting Trump on all counts. The verdict highlighted not only the jury’s decisive rejection of Trump’s defense but also the misplaced confidence Trump had in influencing the trial’s outcome through perceived individual juror biases.
The verdict comes ahead of the Republican National Convention, setting a complex stage for Trump’s political future. Additionally, the sentencing scheduled for July 11 by Judge Juan Merchan poses another critical juncture. Although Trump’s convictions do not necessitate incarceration, his repeated violations of the court’s gag order and a noted lack of remorse could influence the judge’s decision on sentencing, potentially leading to prison time despite Trump’s status as a first-time offender and his age.
This development in Trump’s legal saga underscores the unpredictability of relying on individual jurors for favorable outcomes and reflects broader challenges in swaying judicial processes through perceived personal sympathies.