MSNBC Legal Analyst Warns of ‘Mistrial’ in Trump’s ‘Hush Money’ Case

An MSNBC legal analyst has warned viewers that there’s a possibility that the “hush money” case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against President Donald Trump will end in a mistrial.

Trump is currently on trial for 34 felony counts related to a $130,000 payment to adult star Stormy Daniels.

The so-called “hush money” payment was allegedly made to buy her silence regarding a claimed affair.

However, there is no evidence that an affair ever took place or that Trump was even linked to any payments.

On Thursday, all 12 jurors were selected for the trial which got underway on Monday.

Two jurors were initially excused before the full jury was seated, however.

During MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” legal analyst Danny Cevallos said the excusals indicate the possibility of forthcoming issues “that could lead to a mistrial.”

“So here’s the thing,” Cevallos said.

“I think juror attrition could be a real problem in this case.

“I mean, just do the math,” he continued.

“Last week, we lost two jurors before the trial even began.

“When you think about it, you do lose jurors during a trial.

“I’ve lost them. They fell asleep.

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

“They don’t follow the judge’s orders.

“But you don’t normally lose a juror after the moment they’re selected and between that and the time that the trial actually begins because, ordinarily, nothing happens during that time.”

Cevallos said jurors may later change their minds about serving on the jury as pressure builds in the massive trial.

The legal expert continues:

“But in this case, you have an example where a juror goes home, they start really thinking about their duty and what this is going to entail, and they come back and say, ‘you know what, I don’t want to do this anymore.’

“By the way, that’s also something that happens from time to time,” Cevallos added.

“I’ve had it in organized crime cases.

“You have jurors who come up to the judge and say, ‘I’ll do anything. Please, I do not want to be on this jury. I’m afraid.’

“That’s not obviously the same situation here, but you do have jurors who are going to have second thoughts.”


As Slay News reported last week, one of the jurors was dismissed after expressing concern about her ability to be impartial following friends and colleagues asking if she was on the jury based on press reports.

Another was excused after prosecutors expressed concern that he may not have honestly answered jury selection questions about whether he or a relative had been convicted of a criminal offense.

It was discovered that he had a prior arrest for leftist activism which he had not informed the court about.

Another juror was accused due to a scheduling conflict.

However, when she left the court, the juror told reporters that she was “not a fan” of Trump and that he makes her “angry.”

She then listed reasons why Trump makes her “angry” which included his political statements on abortion and China.

However, her bias had not been detected by the court.

“And the question becomes, will six alternates be enough to cover this trial?” Cevallos asked.

“I hope so,” he continued.

“But if what we’ve seen so far, if that’s the rate of loss of jurors, two before we even start the trial, that could be a real problem and that could lead to a mistrial, which in, I think, the defense’s view, is a win.”

READ MORE – New York Times: Most Trump ‘Hush Money’ Jurors Are ‘Left-of-Center’

Advertise with Slay News
join telegram


Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Notify of
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x