In a development that has raised concerns about the credibility of the jury, the judge presiding over former President Trump's New York criminal trial is now facing scrutiny for his handling of a comment posted to the court's public Facebook page. The comment suggested that one of the jurors discussed the guilty verdict with their family before the trial's conclusion.

The comment, made by a user referring to themselves as "Michael Anderson," stated that their cousin, who served as a juror, claimed Trump was going to be convicted. The user also expressed gratitude for the hard work of those involved in the trial. However, the identity and credibility of "Michael Anderson" remain unclear, with Fox News stating that there is skepticism regarding the veracity of the claim.

Legal expert and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley has expressed skepticism about the comment, noting that online platforms often attract people seeking to provoke or spread false information. Despite this, Turley emphasized the importance of investigating the matter thoroughly to protect the integrity of the jury process.

Jurors in the trial had been explicitly instructed by the judge not to discuss the case with anyone during the ongoing proceedings. The comment was in response to an unrelated court notice and was not related to the trial itself.

The Facebook profile of "Michael Anderson" provides little information, but the user describes themselves as a "Transabled & professional s--- poster." The Trump campaign has stated that it is currently investigating the matter.

Legal experts weighed in on the seriousness of the situation, highlighting that discussions of this nature could potentially lead to mistrials. William Trachman, an attorney from the Mountain States Legal Foundation, emphasized that the allegations, if proven true, could cast doubt on the entire verdict.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani explained that while jury deliberations are typically considered sacred, the introduction of external influences could invalidate the proceedings. He noted that a mistrial could occur if there is evidence of improper outside influences and resulting prejudice.

However, commentators such as William Jacobson, a Cornell Law School professor, caution against jumping to conclusions and advise that the facts be carefully assessed before making any judgments. If the allegations against the juror are substantiated, overturning the verdict could become a possibility.

According to Al Baker, a spokesperson for the state's Office of Court Administration, the court promptly informed the relevant parties once the online comment came to light. It is important to note that this revelation occurred one day before Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records.

As the situation unfolds, the integrity and credibility of the jury in Trump's criminal trial hang in the balance. The judge's handling of the comment has drawn attention, and further investigation is expected to determine the veracity and impact of the alleged compromised jury.