Replies

They are now hearing the most troubling aspect of the instructions: that they do not have to be unanimous on what actually occurred on the second crime that motivated the falsification of the business records. They need only be unanimous that the business records were falsified to use “unlawful means” in the form of one of the three suggested crimes. That includes federal election violations, falsification of business records, or tax violations. For critics, this means that Trump could be convicted in a divided 4-4-4 jury with only a few jurors agreeing on the underlying intent linked to a specific secondary crime

They are now hearing Pecker’s testimony of when he received a call from Donald Trump. He said that Trump told him that Karen “is a nice girl” and that he heard that there was a group trying to buy McDougal’s story and asked what Pecker thought he should do. Pecker recommended buying the story. Pecker said that he believed that the story would be embarrassing “both to himself and to his campaign.” That is an interesting passage because it shows a dual interest in avoiding such stories. Pecker also testified that he previously killed stories for Trump (before he ran for office) and did so for a number of other celebrities.

"For critics, this means that Trump could be convicted in a divided 4-4-4 jury with only a few jurors agreeing on the underlying intent linked to a specific secondary crime"
This means that Trump can't be convicted of a crime in this trial. He can only be convicted of a hypothetical crime of violating a statue that doesn't exist. The crime is "a state election crime or a federal election crime or a tax crime". There is no statute that specifies these A or B or C crimes. If there were, he could be convicted of that statute. You can't be tried for "either assaulting someone or stealing from a store or filing a false tax return". Each of these crimes must be tried separately and there must be a unanimous verdict with respect to each separate crime. I haven't seen the word Kafkaesque used - but it fits like a glove.
" in his novel The Trial, published a year after his death, a young man finds himself caught up in the mindless bureaucracy of the law after being charged with a crime that is never named. So deft was Kafka’s prose at detailing nightmarish settings in which characters are crushed by nonsensical, blind authority, that writers began using his name as an adjective a mere 16 years after his death. "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Kafkaesque