“We didn’t see the rain ourselves, but the evidence suggests it happened” Clarifying Jury Instructions Raises Concerns for Trump’s Defense in Hush Money Trial
![“We didn’t see the rain ourselves, but the evidence suggests it happened” Clarifying Jury Instructions Raises Concerns for Trump’s Defense in Hush Money Trial](https://menzmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Trump-2.jpg)
(NBC News)
In the ongoing hush money trial of former President Donald Trump, the method of explaining jury instructions by Judge Juan Merchan is causing apprehension for Trump’s defense team, as discussed on a CNN panel Thursday morning. As jury deliberations entered the second day, Judge Merchan elaborated on how circumstantial evidence could be interpreted in the trial, which involves 34 felony counts.
CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson introduced the “rain metaphor” to clarify the concept of circumstantial evidence. “Imagine we all walk outside right now; we don’t see rain falling, but we notice wet cars, puddles on the street, and people wearing raincoats,” Jackson explained. “What can we logically infer? That it was raining. We didn’t see the rain ourselves, but the evidence suggests it happened. That’s the prosecution’s main argument here,” he continued.
Jackson further emphasized the potential impact of this explanation on the trial’s outcome. “If the jury accepts this circumstantial evidence as proof, it could spell trouble for the defense,” he noted.
Former prosecutor Jeremy Saland added, “Incorporating common sense is also crucial here. Even if we can’t see that it’s wet directly, the signs are all around us that it rained.”
Co-host Kate Bolduan highlighted the significance of the metaphor, saying, “The rain metaphor sounds even more ominous the way Joey described it.” She then queried Saland about the defense team’s reaction to requests for more information and the implications of their concern. “Absolutely,” Saland responded, “This interpretation of circumstantial evidence seems to favor the prosecution’s case. We’re not in the courtroom, but from what we can tell, it appears to be a concerning development for the defense.”
This nuanced discussion of legal metaphors and jury instruction underscores the complexities of the trial and the high stakes for Donald Trump as the jury continues to deliberate his fate. The defense team, undoubtedly on edge, awaits the jury’s interpretation of the evidence and the ultimate verdict.