Trump did; it's a matter of public record. He violated court instructions about blabbing to the media ten times, and was held in contempt by the judge twice.

He repeatedly make false and misleading statements about the trial, the judge, the witnesses, and even the jury on social media and to the press in the entrance hall of the court building itself. The idiot just couldn't stop himself.

Had he been a regular citizen instead of a former president, he would have almost certainly done jail time just for his behavior during the trial.

*smelled

That's a good point.

I was on a jury in Texas in 2019 and we were tasked with both.

First part: Based on the facts you have been presented, do you think defendant did X?

If yes

Second part: You have determined that defendant did X. Now determine the punishment

That second part was by far the more difficult of the two

My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.

in a jury trial, the judge is there to manage the process and keep it fair. The prosecution presents their case, and the defense tries to poke holes and cause 'reasonable doubt'.

yes, there are controls in place, like instructions on what may and may not be considered during deliberations, and yes, that restricts the jury's decision significantly. For example, they're not allowed to consider that Trump is a lying asshole who stole nuclear secrets when he left office, raped E Jean Carol or tried to lead an insurrection on jan 6 to overturn the government.

None of that really matters to this case. But the 12 jurors were ultimately the ones deciding that guilt or innocence or whatever. And they did so unanimously. The judge didn't make the decision and tell them to come to a guilty verdict. (and the judge can only overrule such a verdict if it's blatantly obvious they fucked it up. usually at that point they start over with a new trial and a new jury.)

Close, but jury instructions are very particular.

"This is the exact law and how it works. Did the defendant run afoul of this law?"

A competent judge and prosecutor forces the whole show to stay exactly in those bounds.

It's... complicated, but sort of yes.

A jury isn't strictly bound by the facts. For example, a jury might feel that a law is unjust, and refuse to find someone guilty (called "jury nullification"). This is good and bad, such as by truly refusing to find guilt under an unjust law, but it has also been used by racist juries to let a white man accused of lynching a black man go free. And even without overwhelming evidence, a jury might find someone guilty, because "everyone knows they did it", or something like that. Or because they did something and they can't exactly prove that or another charge.

And then even after the jury returns their verdict, either the defense or prosecution may move to set aside the verdict. Those motions are rarely granted, but they happen.

I don't think a judge can overturn a jury verdict on their own authority.

Of course, all of this varies by jurisdiction. Federal law and each state's laws have their own quirks, and there are differences in civil and criminal law as well.

The bugs thing is cause they dont understand synthetic meat. Its based off of an older conspiracy from the 90s though.

Fact is, sustaining an increasing population is going to involve using insects as food.