Search Posts

of Sunday Night in America, Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor and former assistant U.S. attorney in litigant who corresponded for Fox Business. So, Andy, let's start with you. The judge said that the jury has to unanimously believe that Donald Trump committed a crime in order to convict him, but they do not need to unanimously agree on what that crime was. And in what world does that work? Not in any world I've ever been in, John. What makes a criminal prosecution appropriate in the sense of taking somebody's liberty away, the array of constitutional protections we have. I've always understood them in 20 years of prosecuting cases and then more years than I care to count analyzing them. I've always understood that to mean every crime has a set of essential elements, and what the jury has to be unanimous on is that the government's proved the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, it's an essential element of that case. Of this case, it's the most essential element of the count that they find this other crime because the only reason we're here is because Bragg used that other crime to inflate what would otherwise be a misdemeanor into a felony that allowed him to escape the statute of limitations. So, the thought that they don't have to be unanimous on that makes no sense to me constitutionally.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.