Former NYC Juror Gives Trump Some Good News

A three-time former juror in New York City believes that the prospects of a positive outcome for former President Donald Trump may not be as bleak as some believe.

Deroy Murdock, a Fox News contributor and political commentator, writes that his experiences on city juries left him believing that most New Yorkers who serve are “civic-minded” Americans who will give the benefit of the doubt to defendants no matter their political affiliation. Attorneys for President Trump have conducted deep dives into the social media histories of prospective jurors which led to dozens of dismissals, including some individuals who misrepresented their left-leaning political beliefs.

(BREAKING: Glenn Beck reveals new Biden initiative that will bankrupt America)

Through one criminal and two civil trials, Murdock writes, “My fellow jurors were serious, professional and movingly civic-minded. A quiet, solemn patriotism infused our deliberations. Several jurors said that we should respect the justice system because, someday, we might need it to respect us.”

In one case, a woman who sued her physician over a botched abortion was denied a verdict in her favor after the jury ruled that her lawyer failed to prove negligence by the doctor. When one juror insisted that they should “give her something” indicative of a small win, a juror shot back, “That’s not how it works!” one said. “I feel sorry for her, too,” another admitted. “But her lawyer never made her case.”

Murdock was also party to a jury in a three-day trial where a drug counselor was denied a defamation-of-character claim against his employer. But it was his third case may shed the most light on how New York juries treat prosecutorial misconduct:

“[I]n her closing argument, a criminal prosecutor displayed a CD-ROM of a police dispatcher’s “Be on the lookout” announcement after an armed robbery. When we asked the judge to play that recording, he told us that it was not in evidence. Disgusted by this prosecutorial deception, we instantly and angrily acquitted the defendants. Minutes later, as foreman, I proudly announced our verdict in court,” Murdock writes.

All three trials showcase why New Yorkers, despite consistently electing mostly far-left politicians, will give their fellow citizens a fair chance at justice, Murdock says. In the case against Trump, Murdock writes that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has given the 12 jurors bountiful reasons to doubt that the trial is unbiased: He indicted Trump on April 4, 2023, four months after the statute of limitations expired for class E felonies. Bragg has skirted the deadline by claiming that Trump used the business records in question to commit a second crime, which he has yet to identify.

That same month, a US Justice Department Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Election Commission concluded that Bragg is powerless to prosecute the matter. “The Department has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws,” the memorandum states. “The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement,” the memo also says. Nowhere does this federal rule grant local prosecutors authority to enforce federal election laws. Thus, Bragg’s case is a shack built atop a cloud of helium.

Finally, Murdock concludes, prosecutors are relying heavily on scandalous behaviors which, while sensational, are not illegal. A “catch and kill” strategy employed against anti-Trump stories between Michael Cohen and the editor of the National Enquirer has been done by other high-profile individuals including Obama Chief of Staff and current Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel, actors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mark Wahlberg, and golf star Tiger Woods. Whether or not President Trump had sex with adult film star Stormy Daniels is also irrelevant to the crimes Trump is charged with.

VOTE NOW: Do you blame BIDEN or TRUMP for the crashing economy?