NEW YORK — Donald Trump sat and watched as the judge presiding over his trial gave instructions to the jury that could bode poorly for his prospects of acquittal in the Manhattan hush money case.

Judge Juan Merchan told the jury that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not Trump, while noting that Trump not testifying in the case cannot be used as a factor for determining whether he is guilty or innocent “beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, Merchan affirmed that the jury need not agree on what the other crime is that Trump allegedly sought to conceal when he allegedly falsified documents.

“Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said while listening to instructions from within the courtroom.

Merchan said the jurors “can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices” presented by prosecutors, Turley noted, which include violations of tax laws, falsification of other business records, or violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, known as FECA.

“Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous,” Turley added.

Although Merchan said that the jury must be unanimous in deciding whether Trump is guilty on each count of falsification of business records, legal experts in the room suggested there does not appear to be much flexibility for a mixed verdict, or a finding that Trump was guilty or innocent of some but not all charges.

“34 guilty verdicts or 34 not guilty verdicts or a hung jury.  I cannot foresee a verdict with some counts as guilty and others as not,” former federal prosecutor Trey Gowdy said.

Merchan told the jurors that reasonable doubt does not mean having no doubts at all, explaining that “there are very few things in this world that are known without some uncertainty.” But he gave a caveat that for the jury, “it is not sufficient to conclude the defendant is probably guilty.”

The judge also referenced the witnesses brought by the prosecution in the case, namely former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who made the $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels that prosecutors say was concealed through the alleged business record falsifications at issue.

Merchan said that Cohen is legally viewed as an “accomplice” in Trump’s case, and that they may not convict Trump solely on Cohen’s testimony.

“Our law is especially concerned about the testimony of an accomplice… particularly when the accomplice has received, expects or hopes for a benefit in exchange for their testimony,” Merchan said.

In other words, even if jurors find Cohen’s testimony believable, despite his history of perjury in the courtroom, they “may not convict the defendant solely based on that testimony unless you find it is corroborated by other evidence.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

At the end of instructions, Merchan explained there is a laptop they will access to view all the evidence during deliberations.

This is a developing story and will be updated.