As the jury in the Manhattan trial of former President Donald Trump headed toward deliberation May 29, Judge Juan Merchan gave jurors their instructions.
Once the instructions filtered onto social media, however, they were distorted.
"Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a UNANIMOUS verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump," former Fox News writer and producer Kyle Becker wrote May 29 on X.
"This is insane," the conservative End Wokeness X account posted a few minutes later to its 2.5 million followers. "New York Judge Merchan just told jurors that they DO NOT have to unanimously agree on what crime Trump is guilty of."
Other social media posts, including from Trump-aligned political strategist Steve Bannon, also claimed the jury verdict did not have to be unanimous. The posts echoed a statement Trump made May 26 on Truth Social that said Merchan imparted "FAKE options for the jury to choose from, without requiring them to be unanimous, which is completely UNAMERICAN AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The posts are inaccurate. If the jury decides to convict, Merchan told them, jurors must agree unanimously on two things: that Trump falsified business records and that he did so intending to commit a separate crime.
Juror unanimity is not necessary on what separate crime Trump intended to commit. Merchan cited three possible crimes: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act; the falsification of other business records; and a violation of tax laws.
Jurors "all need to agree on the verdict, but they can get to that result through different paths and reasoning," said Cheryl G. Bader, a Fordham University associate clinical law professor.
Duncan P. Levin, a Brooklyn, New York-based lawyer with Levin & Associates PLLC, called the social media spin on Marchan’s instructions "absurd."
"It has to be unanimous on the elements of the crime," namely that Trump "caused business records to be filed (and) intended to conceal election by unlawful means," Levin said. But it doesn’t have to be unanimous on the means, he said.
"That is not unusual at all. (It’s) very standard," Levin said. "Someone can be convicted of murder even if the jurors disagree about the type of murder weapon."