Unless you were in the courtroom and heard the evidence, you don't have enough information to have an opinion. The jury heard the evidence, and made their determination.
Trump just won a major election. If there was evidence he did something improper people really should bring it up instead of vague claims that he did something, but we don't need to look too closely. Saying there is evidence but only these 12 people need to see it isn't really meeting the necessary standard. What is the evidence here? It looks like 3 friends agree that something happened around 30 years ago and they should now be paid millions of dollars.
That, and I'm being blunt here, isn't plausible enough to take seriously. I can point at people who think Trump is a fascist who must be stopped at all costs; he's even been the subject of 2 assassination attempts. The idea that 3 people might make a false change is just too plausible. Particularly in New York. A lot of the lawfare that has been unreasonably targeting Trump is happening there.
And if anyone ever accuses me of assaulting them, just saying, I feel a reasonable expectation is that they work out what year it happened.