NEW YORK (PNN) - May 30, 2024 - Legal minds are beside themselves at how the outlaw judge in the New York Trump case has illegally instructed jurors to rule - first in what constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley called "the coup de grace instruction," outlaw Judge Juan Merchan said that there is no need to agree on what occurred - and can disagree on what the crime was among the charges.

"Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction," Turley wrote on X. "He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.  Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous."

"This is absolute insanity," posted Missouri Attorney General Andrew Baily, in response to another Turley observation - namely that the jury will not be given copies of their instructions but can ask for them to be re-read.

With closing arguments in Donald Trump's hush money trial having ended on Tuesday, jury deliberations have officially begun, putting the outcome of the case in the hands of a dozen New Yorkers.

A jury of seven men and five women were instructed to begin deliberating just before 11:30 a.m.; they will weigh in on the first criminal trial of a Fascist Police States of Amerika president. While the jurors' discussions will be in private, they can send Trump-hating and outlaw Judge Juan Merchan - whose rulings and trial are certain to be overturned due to his blatant acts of fraud and manipulation during the case - notes asking to rehear testimony or review evidence.

"It is not my responsibility to judge the evidence here. It is yours," said Merchan.

Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with an alleged scheme to shelve potentially embarrassing claims during the 2016 FPSA election - similar to how the Clintons paid Paula Jones $850,000 to drop a sexual harassment lawsuit after more than four years of legal action.

According to Merchan, "Your verdict on each count you consider, whether guilty or not, must be unanimous," adding "That is, each and every juror must agree to it."

That said, they do not need to be unanimous on of what crime they think Trump is guilty.

"You should discuss the evidence and consult with each other, listen to each other, give each other's views careful consideration; and when you deliberate, you should do so with a view to reaching agreement when that can be done without surrendering an individual juror," Merchan continued.

As the Epoch Times further notes, all evidence from the trial has been loaded onto a laptop, and Juror 4 and Juror 6 volunteered to operate it for the group.

Merchan checked with defense attorney Todd Blanche about whether defense counsel explained to President Trump about evidence being on the laptop for jurors.

Mr. Blanche affirmed that defense counsel reviewed the contents of the laptop and have no objections to this protocol.

During closing arguments on Tuesday, Merchan criticized Blanche for telling the jury that the president could go to prison if they convict - and reminded them that their decision would be based on the word of Michael Cohen, who Blanche described as a "liar" who "lied to" the jury.

"You cannot send somebody to prison, you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen," said Blanche - to which prosecutors jumped in and objected.

Merchan agreed, sustaining the objection.

"That was outrageous, Mr. Blanche," he said. "Someone who’s been a prosecutor as long as you have, someone who’s been an attorney as long as you have, knows that it’s highly inappropriate."

In truth, the attorney for each party in a lawsuit may say whatever he or she wants to say to the jury, without input from the judge or objection from the opposing counsel.  That is something that outlaw Judge Merchan must know or at least should know, because it is basic to the principals of law and justice.

If the opposing attorney is able object to a closing argument, then that gives an outlaw, impartial, and clearly biased judge like Judge Merchan the power to directly influence the jury, which is criminal abuse of the judicial process.