I started to worry about this late last week. I remember watching a Dateline or 48 Hours Special where the judge did exactly that and offered no explanation. There’s also no reversal or recourse for the State.
If you were going to throw a case for political means that would be the way to do it, IMO. Hot saying that’s what will happen but, it did cross my mind as a possibility.
defense asked for acquittal based on a lack of “materiality” and a failure to show the necessary “willfulness”. Earlier they were arguing whether it was manafort who signed applications and such…
tried to maintain his standard of living via bank fraud
Do not try this at home, kids.
Not exactly. The defense is moving for directed verdict (or some equivalent), meaning they are arguing the government failed to present any evidence on certain elements of the offense, and therefore no reasonable jury could rule in the government’s favor. It’s a pretty standard motion in a criminal prosecution, and it virtually always fails. It also helps that Manafort for sure committed these crimes.
Oh, I don’t know - it works pretty well most of the time. But don’t try it while you’re managing a presidential campaign.
In the end it is a matter of how the jury perceives the facts presented. Manafort apparently isn’t going to go there with alternative facts, so the facts stand or fall according to the jury’s testing of the evidence. Sentencing could be a factor as he needs a sentence of less than 10 years to get into Club Fed. I believe a plea bargain is possible even at this stage in the trial (say, guilty to all charges for 9 years 11 months, pay back owed taxes).
Crime Drama Monday! This week: the Brady Bunch vs. Uncle Fester
Can’t really comment on the merits of the prosecution’s case, as I only know what has been reported here and by the NY Times and Washington Post. Cases based primarily on documents (“Paper cases”) tend to be dry and fairly straightforward, and it sounds like that was true here. The standard the judge is supposed to use in ruling on a defense motion for acquittal is, " …whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime(s) proven beyond a reasonable doubt." It’s hard to imagine that any judge, using that very low standard, would dismiss any of the charges against Manafort. However, Judge Ellis has done and said some very questionable things in this case, and seems very biased toward the defense. We shall see.
I read this just now, and it sure seems like that? His comments are strange to me?
It is the judge and his comments that worry the hell out of me.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-manafort-trial-day-10-banker-says-manafort-omitted-two-ny-mortgages-in-dollar16-million-loan-applications/ar-BBLSKUb?ocid=spartanntp
I think the argument could be made that if there are enough Trump voters on the jury to prevent conviction, then jeopardy never attached and Manafort could be re-tried.
People who voted for Trump heard him admit in a private conversation that he grabs women by their genitals and his celebrity status lets him get away with it. And then they went and voted for him. I’d say the burden of proof is on the person who seeks to assert that a Trump voter is capable of enforcing the law against those Trump has blessed.
EDIT: fixed accidental double negative. Words is hard!
Technically, you are correct. However, in a white collar case such as this it is rare for the defense to have very many witnesses or for them to testify for a lengthy period of time. Thus, it is likely that the jury will start deliberations some time this week.
I believe it’s extremely common for the defense to put forth a motion to dismiss after the prosecution rests in hopes that by some miracle the judge will dismiss the case. It’s almost never granted, but it doesn’t hurt to try.
Perhaps they are planning to call character witnesses on Manafort’s behalf. Here is a list of these potential character witnesses:
Jeopardy attaches at the start of the second trial, which comes after you have already been tried and acquitted on identical charges by the same sovereign.
Agreed. I also tend to think MOST jurors take their duties pretty seriously and would have a hard time letting someone off the hook that the prosecution has dead to rights. A stray Trumper on the jury may even think they’re doing PP a favor by sending this creep to prison.
But they were especially focused on the bank fraud charges, arguing that the bank did not rely on Manafort’s representations when making the loans in question.
What a coincidence. Neither did Deripaska et al.
I don’t think most Americans think so politically. I do think they take their jobs seriously. I work with many Republicans who are very thoughtful in their job roles. It’s just the politics that we disagree about. This trial has not been about politics as far as what has been heard in the courtroom is concerned.
I wish the prosecutors would’ve tried to bring up the Russian angle with Trump’s campaign and Manafort’s role in that. Treason would have been harder for the jurors to dismiss.If there are Trumpsters on the jury. They may ask themselves who got hurt? Manafort brought in a lot of money into the economy from crooked foreign sources and spent it like there was going to be no tomorrow. He bought multiple houses and paid a lot of property taxes, kept some boutique retailers in coin and provided job security for a few tailors. If the banks came out whole, who really were the victims?
No, I don’t feel that way, but a Republican juror may.
This segment from Ari + Renato Marriotti’s tweets are pretty much where I am on this Manafort trial.
"If I had to bet money and I don't have a lot of money, Paul Manafort will be found guilty"@rossi4va fmr. Prosecutor who argued before Manafort Judge more than 500 times: pic.twitter.com/ip9mc41QEb
— TheBeat w/Ari Melber (@TheBeatWithAri) August 13, 2018