During the ongoing legal proceedings, discussions have arisen regarding the language that the defense team wishes to include in the jury instructions. The defense is advocating for the jury to be informed that during the years 2015 and 2016, there were no restrictions on a candidate's ability to contribute personal funds to their own campaign.
However, Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo has expressed opposition to this proposed language, arguing that it is irrelevant to the case at hand and could potentially confuse the jury. As a result, Colangelo has made it clear that he does not support including information about candidates' personal contributions in the jury instructions.
In response to the prosecutor's stance, the presiding judge, Merchan, has indicated that he will not be including the disputed language in the jury instructions. Instead, Merchan has advised the defense that they are free to address the issue of personal wealth in their closing arguments. Specifically, the defense is permitted to assert that if the defendant possesses significant personal wealth, they could have financed the matter in question independently.
As the legal proceedings continue, the debate over the inclusion of specific language in the jury instructions underscores the importance of clarity and relevance in ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved.
