'Unbelievably bad': Legal experts debate significance of online comment on Trump jury

Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over former President Donald Trump's criminal conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, caused a stir on Friday when he notified both legal teams that the New York Court System has become aware of a response to a Facebook post from someone named "Michael Anderson" purporting to be a cousin of a juror, saying that Trump was going to be convicted.

Some legal experts sounded the alarm, warning it could give ammunition for Trump's legal team to throw the conviction out — but other commentators said to hit the brakes, because there's a lot we don't know yet.

"If this person is actually related to a juror, this is unbelievably bad. And if the user knows no one who was on the jury, it's even worse," wrote legal analyst Lisa Rubin on X.

ALSO READ: ‘That's the Kool-Aid’: Republicans triple down on Trump the morning after guilty verdict

But this remark confused MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes: "Wait why is it worse if it’s just a rando pretending to know something they don’t?"

Other experts speculated on whether "Michael Anderson" is even a real family member of a juror, or just a social media troll pretending to know the result and just getting lucky. "Some rando," said national security attorney Bradley Moss dismissively. The Daily Beast's Roger Sollenberger, on the other hand, isn't so sure: "Seems Merchan would not have publicly released this information without having confirmed that the person really was a juror’s cousin and not just posting bulls---."

The other ongoing wrinkle is whether the reply in question actually happened before the verdict.

"Michael Anderson" was responding to an unrelated Facebook post on the official New York courts page dated May 29, and both that post and the reply appear to be hidden from the public at this time; however, the reply itself is reportedly only listed "one week old" according to Merchan's report — which could mean it was posted any time between May 29, the day before the verdict, and May 31, a day after. "Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the post is a week old, per Judge Merchan’s letter, then it was posted *after* Thursday’s verdict, right?" wrote attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang.

And then there's other details about "Michael Anderson" that make the veracity more dubious. For one thing, Phang noted, there are other posts going as far back as May 20 in which the account said the same thing about Trump being convicted, which was before the jury even began deliberating, and said in a follow-up post that he and his cousin were married. The "Michael Anderson" account also reportedly identifies as a "professional s--- poster" in its bio.