Trump claims jury misconduct in latest attempt to discredit hush money conviction

Donald Trump's lawyers are urging the New York judge in his criminal hush money case to throw out his conviction based on unsworn allegations of "grave juror misconduct" that prosecutors have described as vague and "seemingly inaccurate."

While Trump's lawyers argued the claims illustrate "the manifest unfairness of these proceedings," Judge Juan Merchan criticized Trump's lawyers for making claims consisting "entirely of unsworn allegations" and for opposing a hearing that would allow the allegations to be vetted.

"Allegations of juror misconduct should be thoroughly investigated. However, this Court is prohibited from deciding such claims on the basis of mere hearsay and conjecture," wrote Merchan, largely rejecting the claims unless Trump's attorneys provide sworn statements or consent to a hearing on the matter.

Trump's claims were included in court filings unsealed on Monday, but the specific allegations were redacted.

Defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove -- who Trump last month nominated to top positions in the Department of Justice -- claimed to have uncovered evidence of juror misconduct that calls into question what they call the "dubious validity of the highly suspect verdicts rendered by the jury."

Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.

Judge Merchan has postponed Trump's sentencing indefinitely following Trump’s reelection last month, as the president-elect has sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity.

Trump's lawyers, citing presidential immunity and other ongoing litigation, told Merchan they oppose a hearing examining their claims of juror misconduct, and instead asked the judge to weigh the claims as he considers Trump's pending motion to throw out the case.

"This behavior is completely unacceptable, and it demonstrates without question that the verdicts in this case are as unreliable as DA Bragg's promise to protect Manhattanites from violent crime," the defense lawyers said, referring to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case.

Prosecutors argued in a filing that the jury misconduct claims are vague and untested, and that Trump's lawyers declined to include a sworn declaration. They wrote that the alleged source of the claims directly told Trump's lawyers that their summary of the allegations "contains inaccuracies and does not contain additional information that I never shared," and that they declined to sign a sworn affidavit.

"Defendant cannot short-circuit this process by insisting that this Court treat his unsworn and seemingly inaccurate allegations of jury misconduct as true," prosecutors said.

Prosecutors alleged that Trump's lawyers are avoiding the proper mechanism to evaluate the claims by inserting them into the public domain while "opposing any endeavor to properly evaluate them."

"Defendant does not want to participate in a hearing designed to evaluate these claims. He wants instead to use these unsworn, untested claims by his attorneys to undermine public confidence in the verdict," their filing said.

Judge Merchan largely sided with prosecutors, declining to consider the claims unless Trump's lawyers specifically move to vacate the verdict due to allegations of juror misconduct based on sworn allegations or evaluated through a hearing, which they so far have not done. Merchan still allowed both sides to docket their filings with significant redactions.

"This Court finds that to allow the public filing of the letter without redactions and without the benefit of a hearing, would only serve to undermine the integrity of these proceedings while simultaneously placing the safety of the jurors at grave risk," Merchan wrote.

The exchange comes as the Merchan, on Monday, rejected Trump's request to vacate the verdict in the case based on the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision.

Trump had sought to dismiss his criminal indictment and vacate the jury verdict on the grounds that prosecutors, during the trial earlier this year, introduced evidence relating to Trump's official acts as president that was inadmissible based on the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling that Trump is entitled to presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office.

Merchan ruled that the evidence in the case related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."