Trump trial jury wants instructions on ‘rain metaphor’: What it means

• Jurors in Trump’s secret trial asked the judge to reread his instructions on the “rain metaphor.”
• Jury evaluates 34 counts of falsifying business records related to Stormy Daniels.
• Jurors appear to want clarity on how to assess Trump’s intentions under the secrecy plan.

The jury in Donald Trump’s criminal trial had one specific request before beginning deliberations Thursday: They asked to hear again what they described in a memo as the judge’s instruction on the “rain metaphor.”

He tells the jury that he can infer that it is raining – by seeing someone’s wet umbrella, for example – even if he does not see the rain himself.

The request suggests they could be assessing Trump’s intent, which can only be inferred and not proven.

The “rain metaphor,” as the jury note calls it, is often used by judges in jury instructions.

It tells jurors that they can infer certain facts from surrounding circumstances using common sense.

“Suppose you go to bed one night when it’s not raining, and when you wake up in the morning you look out the window,” New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan told jurors, reading the instructions. of the jury. given Wednesday.

“You don’t see rain, but you see the street and sidewalk are wet and people are wearing raincoats and umbrellas,” Merchan told jurors, who appeared to listen intently.

“In these circumstances it may be reasonable to infer, that is, to conclude, that it rained during the night,” the judge said.

“In other words, the fact that it rained while you were sleeping is an inference that could be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of water in the street and on the sidewalk, and of people in raincoats and wearing umbrellas,” he concluded.

The jurors are very attentive

The jurors were visibly engaged as they listened.

Juror 3, a young corporate lawyer, and Juror 5, a charter school teacher, each leaned forward in their seats in the front row of the jury box as Merchan read what they called “the metaphor of rain”.

Juror 4, a young safety engineer sitting between them, took notes.

Also taking notes was Juror 7, a middle-aged lawyer, who had said during jury selection: “I’m a trial lawyer, so I take the law seriously and I take the judge’s instructions very seriously. serious”.

As the judge explained how to infer Trump’s intent “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the engineer, lawyer and teacher scribbled hard on their white legal pads.

Meanwhile, Juror 12, a physical therapist, held her hand to her chin as if concentrating while reciting the rain metaphor.

Juror 10 began taking notes as the judge explained how Trump may have violated campaign finance laws — a possible path to convicting him of the business tampering charges.

Why Intent Matters

Jurors are considering 34 counts of whether Trump falsified business records as part of a scheme to hide a secret payment to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. They deliberated for four and a half hours Wednesday.

On Wednesday afternoon, they asked the judge to reread about half an hour of testimony. Proofreadings requested suggest they had delved deep into the details of the alleged plot to influence the 2016 election by keeping Daniels silent about an affair she says she had with Trump.

They asked for the “rain metaphor” specifically on Thursday morning.

Trump, 77, does not use email or send text messages.

There is no evidence that he ever typed a note saying anything like: “I will falsify payment records to my attorney Michael Cohen in order to violate section 17-152 of the New York Election Law, also breaking campaign finance and tax laws along the way.

So, in order to find Trump guilty, jurors would have to infer his role in the secrecy scheme based on testimony and documents from the case surrounding it.

The jury’s request Thursday morning could show jurors still cannot agree on whether Trump intended to cover up another crime when he caused the falsification of business records.

After the judge finished reciting the instructions to the jury, two of the court reporters reread portions of the testimony. They played the role of questioning lawyers and witnesses who had previously taken the stand.

A middle-aged court reporter wearing glasses sat on the witness stand and played the roles of former National Enquirer editor David Pecker and Michael Cohen.

Jurors also asked if they could have headphones with a 35-millimeter jack so they could listen to the audio recordings included on the laptop of evidence they have with them in the jury deliberation room. .

The judge said they could. And that it would also add speakers.