This whole sham trial is why The Sixth Amendment exists!

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/judge-merchan-re-reads-portions-his-jury-instructions-thursday-trump-hush

Any normie can figure this judge is biased just by watching or reading about how Judge Merchan is giving the prosecution every advantage he can under the color of law, and is not even trying to hide it!

Any juror who knows his (or her - I'm not giving any credence to any insanity -biology -yes!) rights as a juror knows they are the ones, not the judge who determines guilt or innocence: This is why the Sixth Amendment exists. Juries are free to disregard the instructions of a judge if those instructions violate this standard, and a judge cannot tell the jury what the verdict should be.

Frankly, it is the jury's duty to ensure a fair trial, but even juries can be intimidated by a hostile judge. (One more reason for jury nullification!) If the jury sees the law as unjust, they may also hang the jury or vote not guilty: This is Jury nullification, and should happen far more often with unjust laws (Like using RICO against peaceful pro-lifers) than it does. The same should apply to selectively enforced laws, if they are not enforced for one group, (say, Jane's Revenge) and are against another (Students for Life, e.g.) they should be nullified on the Equal Protection clause.

Justice Sotomayor has even affirmed this right:

"You know the Second Circuit has an opinion that basically says that juries should never be instructed about jury nullification and that any instruction that would suggest it is wrong. I hewed very closely to the Second Circuit line for many, many years. As I’ve grown more in the system and watching it, I’m not so sure that that’s right.

Think about what juries did during the civil rights movement. If it weren’t for jury nullification, we would have many civil rights individuals who would be convicted felons or otherwise for things that today we think are protected by the First Amendment.

There is a place, I think, for jury nullification. Finding the balance of that and the role that a judge should or should not play in advising juries about that is, I think, a different thing.

But I think that we need—you’re right. Our forefathers did not believe that juries necessarily always got it right, but it was, I think what they believed is that the jury getting it wrong, was better than the crown getting it wrong."

https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/what-is-jury-nullification.html

https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/is-jury-nullification-legal.html