New York Judge Juan Merchan told the New York Supreme Court that only four out of twelve jurors need to agree that Trump is guilty for the court to find him guilty and sentence him to four years in prison.

“There is no need to agree on what has occurred,” said Judge Merchan. “They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously.”

Former Assistant US Attorney Andy McCarthy responded to the judge’s statement, saying “It’s really outrageous, in a normal criminal case, every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense.” Watch:

“Like in a bank robbery case, you know, you have to rob a financial institution, you have to show intent,” McCarthy continued. “These are the things a jury has to agree on unanimously that they prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Here, what we are doing, we are taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember that falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York, what makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime.”

“And here, the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is, under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, what makes it a four year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less.”

This is lawfare, plain and simple, designed to hobble a presidential candidate during an election year, as McCarthy continued to explain.

“But it’s also what gets us into the courtroom, because if this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019.”

“So the only reason they can bring this case is because it’s a felony – allegedly – and the judge is saying, ‘you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is.'”