Jury Misconduct Alleged in Trump Hush Money Trial: Unverified Social Media Post Claims Juror Announced Verdict Early

New York City, New York United States of America
Comment stated Trump is getting convicted
Jury misconduct allegations in Trump hush money trial
Social media post claims juror announced verdict early
Trump had pleaded not guilty and denied Daniels' claims
Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records last month
User named Michael Anderson made the claim
Jury Misconduct Alleged in Trump Hush Money Trial: Unverified Social Media Post Claims Juror Announced Verdict Early

In a dramatic turn in the hush money trial of former President Donald Trump, Judge Juan Merchan has raised questions about a social media post claiming to preview the jury verdict before it was announced. The comment, attributed to a user named Michael Anderson, stated, ‘My cousin is a juror and said Trump is getting convicted’. If the defendant learns of alleged jury misconduct and it may have affected a substantial right, they can move to set aside the verdict under New York criminal procedure law. However, NBC News has not verified the claims made in the comment or the identity of the user who published the post, which has since been deleted. Trump was convicted last month on 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to reimbursing Cohen for hush money paid to Daniels in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Trump had pleaded not guilty in the case and denied Daniels’ claims that she had a sexual encounter with him in 2006. Trump’s sentencing in the case is scheduled for July 11.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

60%

Doubts
  • Identity of user Michael Anderson not verified
  • NBC News has not confirmed the authenticity of the social media post

Sources

100%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Judge in Trump's hush money case raises questions about social media post claiming to preview jury verdict

NBC News Digital Saturday, 08 June 2024 01:44
  • Unique Points
    • Judge Juan Merchan asked attorneys in Donald Trump’s hush money trial about a social media post claiming to preview a guilty verdict.
    • The comment, attributed to a user named Michael Anderson, stated ‘My cousin is a juror and said Trump is getting convicted’.
    • If a defendant learns of alleged jury misconduct and it may have affected a substantial right, they can move to set aside the verdict under New York criminal procedure law.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

98%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict before trial concluded

Fox News Media Brooke Singman Saturday, 08 June 2024 01:44
  • Unique Points
    • Judge Juan Merchan was notified of a comment on the court's Facebook page by a user named 'Michael Anderson' claiming a family member was a juror in Trump's trial and stating Trump was getting convicted before the trial concluded.
    • The comment was posted on May 29, a day before Trump was found guilty on all counts in his New York criminal trial.
  • Accuracy
    • Juror discussed guilty verdict before trial concluded
    • Trump is getting convicted
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

98%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Judge Merchan's Letter to Trump Trial Lawyers Raises Eyebrows

Newsweek LLC Kaitlin Lewis Friday, 07 June 2024 22:33
  • Unique Points
    • A comment was left on the New York State Unified Court System’s Facebook page by a user named ‘Michael Anderson’, stating that a juror in Donald Trump’s hush money trial had indicated that Trump would be convicted.
    • It is unclear if the comment was posted before or after Trump’s guilty verdict on May 30.
  • Accuracy
    • A juror in Donald Trump’s hush money trial had indicated that Trump would be convicted.
    • Trump is getting convicted
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

95%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Judge flags Facebook post claiming inside access to Trump verdict

BBC News Site: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68702081, About Us URL: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/ Max Matza Saturday, 08 June 2024 01:46
  • Unique Points
    • A Facebook post claiming inside access to the jury's decision in Donald Trump’s hush-money case was brought to the attention of Judge Juan Merchan by a user named ‘Michael Anderson’.
    • The post claimed that a cousin was a juror and that Trump was getting convicted.
    • The post was deleted and BBC News could not verify its authenticity or the claims within it.
  • Accuracy
    • A Facebook post claiming inside access to the jury's decision in Donald Trump’s hush-money case was brought to the attention of Judge Juan Merchan.
    • The post, made by a user named ‘Michael Anderson’, claimed that a cousin was a juror and that Trump was getting convicted.
    • Trump had pleaded not guilty and denied Daniels’ claims of a sexual encounter with him in 2006.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites a letter from the judge without providing any critical analysis or contextual information about the content of that letter. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction in the phrase 'Trump's team might also ask the judge to bring in each juror to question them, in an effort to establish whether any outside influence affected their verdict.' This implies that either the jurors were influenced by outside factors or they weren't, which is a false dichotomy. Lastly, there are inflammatory rhetoric examples such as 'The US judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush-money case in New York City' and 'the former president’s defence team'. These phrases contribute to an emotionally charged narrative rather than providing neutral reporting.
    • The US judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush-money case in New York City
    • the former president’s defence team
    • Trump's team might also ask the judge to bring in each juror to question them, in an effort to establish whether any outside influence affected their verdict.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication