During a recent court proceeding, Donald Trump's legal team requested an expanded jury instruction on intent and an additional instruction on intent to defraud. The presiding judge, Juan Merchan, questioned the necessity of including the 'intent to defraud' charge alongside the intent charge.
Trump's attorney, Emil Bove, raised concerns about instructing the jury that intent to defraud could encompass defrauding the government and the voting public based on the specifics of the case. Merchan clarified that prosecutors must demonstrate intent to deprive another party, without the requirement of proving it involves property or money specifically.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued that the proposed wording for 'intent to defraud' is crucial in light of the case's circumstances. Merchan indicated a willingness to adopt a line suggested by the prosecutors, emphasizing that intent to defraud can extend beyond economic matters.
Bove insisted that the jury should be informed about what constitutes intent to defraud rather than what it does not include. He proposed incorporating language that involves leading another party into error or disadvantage.
Colangelo noted that the defense's suggested language is not part of the official legal definition for intent to defraud. The debate over the inclusion of specific language in the jury instructions underscores the importance of clarity and precision in legal proceedings.
