Merchan actually illegally counseled them that the jurists might not all agree on certain charges but if the Manhattan Democrat filled jury could simply agree that Trump committed ANY crime - even if it there wasn't unanimity on any of the specific crimes individually, then they would be able to count that as being "unanimous".
This is one of the obvious reasons why this will be overturned someday....which is why Merchan won't proceed with the last process which would then trigger a review.
Since you accepted this unconstitutional definition of Merchan's for Trump, I need to ask what your definition of "unanimous" is here?
This message has been edited 2 time(s).