One week after former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts, Judge Juan Merchan has expressed concerns over a social media post by someone who claimed to be related to a juror.

The post, flagged by Merchan, has prompted speculation about whether a juror may have violated their oath and discussed the outcome of deliberations with an outsider before a verdict was announced, as the Washington Examiner reports.

Trump's Conviction and the Social Media Post

On May 30, former President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records linked to efforts to hide hush money payments to Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election.

Merchan raised concerns on Friday regarding a social media post that appeared on the court’s page around the time of the jury’s verdict. The post was made by a Facebook user named Michael Anderson, who claimed to be the cousin of a juror involved in Trump’s case.

Concerns Over Potential Juror Misconduct

Anderson, who describes himself as a “professional s***poster,” made several comments on his Facebook wall following the judge's letter becoming public.

These comments were scrutinized to determine if a juror had discussed the case outside the courtroom, potentially violating their oath. Among Anderson’s flagged comments were statements about his cousin being a juror and predicting that Trump would be convicted.

Content of Anderson's Comments

Anderson’s specific post was labeled by Facebook as being “one week old” and made in conjunction with a May 29 comment on the court system's Facebook page, which was unrelated to Trump's trial. He also made a comment on a May 20 post by the New York State Unified Court System, asserting his cousin’s role as a juror and forecasting Trump’s conviction.

The original posts by the New York State Unified Court System were no longer visible by 5:50 p.m. on Friday, suggesting they had been hidden or removed.

Judge Merchan's Response

Judge Merchan informed the parties through a letter about the situation and Anderson's social media activity.

The letter highlighted the necessity to scrutinize these claims to ensure the integrity of the jury’s decision-making process remained intact.

In response to the judge's letter, Anderson reacted by boasting about his role online, stating, "Take it easy… I’m a professional s***poster" alongside a laughing emoji.

Trump's Upcoming Sentencing

Trump is scheduled to participate in a pre-sentence interview with a probation officer ahead of his sentencing date on July 11. Judge Merchan has permitted Trump attorney Todd Blanche to be present during this pre-sentence interview.

Onlookers and legal experts alike are closely monitoring the situation, given its potential implications for the judicial process.

Social Media's Role in Legal Proceedings

This incident underscores the influential role social media can play in modern legal proceedings. The claims made by Anderson, whether factual or not, have cast doubt on the sanctity of the jury's confidentiality.

The court must now address these allegations to uphold public confidence in the judicial system and ensure that justice is fairly administered.

Ensuring Juror Accountability

The judiciary's responsibility to maintain juror integrity cannot be overstated, particularly in high-profile cases such as Trump's.

Any perceived breach of this responsibility, as suggested by Anderson's posts, could potentially impact the verdict's legitimacy. Therefore, Judge Merchan's prompt call for examination of these posts serves as a reminder of the judiciary's vigilance in preserving the sanctity of the legal process.

Public Reaction and Implications

The public’s reaction to Anderson’s comments has been varied, with some expressing concern over possible misconduct and others viewing the posts as frivolous.

The court's handling of this matter will likely influence public sentiment regarding the fairness of high-profile trials moving forward.

Ultimately, the investigation's outcome will play a crucial role in determining the validity of Anderson's claims and the integrity of the jury’s decision.