President Trump’s defense team asked the judge, presiding over his hush-money trial, Juan Merchan, to dismiss the case based on “grave juror misconduct,” according to a letter the attorneys sent to the judge in early December, which was made public on Tuesday.

“We write regarding evidence of grave juror misconduct during the trial, which further illustrates the manifest unfairness of these proceedings and serves as yet another reason that the verdicts in this case cannot stand,” a letter written by the two defense attorneys, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, states. The specific allegations of the “extensive and pervasive misconduct” appeared to have been redacted.

The letter was sent to Judge Merchan on December 3 but was only made public on Tuesday, after the judge addressed the matter in his own letter sent to the attorneys on Monday, as the Sun reported. 

“Turning next to Defendant’s letter of December 3, 2024, alleging juror misconduct.” Judge Merchan wrote on Monday. “Allegations of juror misconduct should be thoroughly investigated. However, this Court is prohibited from deciding such claims on the basis of mere hearsay and conjecture,” Judge Merchan ruled. “This Court cannot allow the public filing of unsworn, and admittedly contested statements. To do so would threaten the safety of the jurors and violate the agreed upon Order Regulating Disclosure of Juror Information.”  

The defense’s seven page long letter was published Tuesday with more than four pages blacked out. 

The defense argued that their secret claims of juror misconduct “violated President Trump’s rights under the federal Constitution and New York law.” And such misconduct, they insisted, harms “the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system.” 

While the misconduct was not specified, the letter referred to an “extraordinary level of bias reflected in self-selecting and other successful for-cause challenges during jury selection” and found that the “the jury in this case was not anywhere near fair and impartial.” 

“This behavior is completely unacceptable, and it demonstrates without question that the verdicts in this case are as unreliable as DA Bragg’s promise to protect Manhattanites from violent crime,” the defense lawyers said, referring to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who was criticized for diverting significant resources to the Trump case, which they deemed could have gone to public safety initiatives. 

But prosecutors argued that the defense’s juror misconduct allegation “contains inaccuracies” and that Trump’s attorneys had declined to include a signed affidavit, sworn testimony, by the source who appears to have witnessed or discovered the alleged misconduct.     

“Defendant cannot short-circuit this process by insisting that this Court treat his unsworn and seemingly inaccurate allegations of jury misconduct as true,” prosecutors wrote. 

Prosecutors alleged that Trump’s defense team was trying to circumvent proper procedures by bringing the accusations to the public’s attention while they refused “to properly evaluate them.”

“Defendant does not want to participate in a hearing designed to evaluate these claims. He wants instead to use these unsworn, untested claims by his attorneys to undermine public confidence in the verdict,” prosecutors wrote.

Judge Merchan told the attorneys in his letter on Monday that the defense “has an avenue for this Court to consider his claim, should it be properly brought.” He directed the defense to file a motion which “must contain sworn allegations.” And if such sworn testimony could not be brought, the court “must conduct a hearing and make findings of fact essential to the determination thereof.” 

The judge refused to dismiss the case based on the misconduct allegations, and was apprehensive of public filings without redactions and no court hearing, writing it could put the jurors at risk. He did however, allow the parties to share their filings with redactions.    

“This Court finds that to allow the public filing of the letter without redactions and without the benefit of a hearing, would only serve to undermine the integrity of these proceedings while simultaneously placing the safety of the jurors at grave risk.”

A spokesman for the Trump transition, Steven Cheung, denounced the judge in a statement quoted in the Associated Press. “Partisan political motivations infected nearly every aspect of this Witch Hunt, including the jury room,” he said, adding that Judge Merchan and Mr. Bragg had allowed “their own personal political biases to fuel this charade … they should be ashamed of their inaction in refusing to investigate this serious matter, and allowing the grievous misconduct to occur.”

Mr. Cheung further said that, “it is clear that there is more information that should come to light regarding misconduct, and those with knowledge of such information should come forward and do what is right.” 

In May, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony charges of falsification of business records in an alleged scheme to interfere with the 2016 election. 

Mr. Bragg had alleged that in 2016, Trump’s then-personal attorney Michael Cohen made a $130,000 hush-money payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, to buy her silence about her claim that she had a single sexual encounter with Trump at a celebrity golf tournament at Lake Tahoe in 2006. Trump was accused of directing Cohen to wire the money to Ms. Clifford and then disguising his reimbursement to Cohen as a legal fee. Trump denies all charges and says he never had sex with Ms. Clifford.

In their Tuesday letter, Trump’s attorneys, Mr. Blanche and Mr. Bove, who have both been tapped for top jobs in Trump’s Justice Department,  described the case as  “politically-motivated lawfare” and wrote that other defendants in “normal cases” would have the ability to “seek appropriate remedies for these blatant rights violations through a motion to vacate the verdicts.” 

Trump was scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. Yet on July 1, the Supreme Court declared that presidents are immune from prosecution when exercising the ‘core powers’ of their presidencies. Within hours of the landmark ruling, Trump’s attorneys requested to dismiss the hush-money verdict and the indictment, arguing Mr. Bragg used evidence during the trial that stemmed from the time Trump served his first term as president.

On Monday, the judge denied the defense’s request to dismiss the case on grounds that the immunity ruling renders it null and void. It is not clear whether or not the judge will freeze the sentencing until Trump’s presidency ends in 2029.

There are several arguments Trump’s defense has made in its efforts to get the case dismissed, such as the Presidential Transition Act from 1963, which protects “the orderly transfer of the executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of office of a President and the inauguration of a new President.” 

Trump will be inaugurated on January 20.