Discussion: How The Manafort Defense Team Succeeded In Sowing Doubt With The Jury

[socalista]

Are we going to drive ourselves crazy re-litigating Manafort’s trial? Seriously, this is just defense attorneys doing their job. Manafort was not acquitted on anything and he was convicted on eight (that’s a lot) counts of financial crime. Picking over the corpse of the trial is for jackals and crows. There are more important things to think about now.

[stradivarius50t3]

Will the retrial (if there is one on the remaining counts – I kind of doubt it myself although Mueller may hold the threat over Manafort’s head to get him cooperate) necessarily take place before Judge Ellis, or can the prosecution ask for a different judge for the retrial?

[ralph_vonholst]

“That’s hard to beat, when you’ve got the judge making the defense’ argument for them,” Cotter said.

Buried the lede, did we.

[xpurg8d]

When I’ve served on jury duty, after the trial was over, we freely spoke with attorneys for both sides and the judge.

Same here. Sometimes no one wanted to ask us anything afterwards, but sometimes the attorneys on both sides ask the jurors (collectively, not in private interviews) some questions about why we decided this, or how we reacted to that, so that they could learn about what kinds of things impact jury thought processes.

[ralph_vonholst]

There are more important things to think about now.

Exactly. Like a double short latte and a scone.

[reggid]

MAGA: Manafort’s About to Go Away

[carolson]

Yes, like how to stop McConnell, who’d rather throw himself in front of a train than delay Kavanaugh’s hearing. Jeff Flake, come on, man, step up - you’ll be a hero (relative, of course).

[reggid]

BTW, Pat Cotter is awesome – great attorney, great prosecutor, great law professor, and a great guy. He was my criminal law professor - just a really sharp, really funny guy.

Ironically, he worked in Giuliani’s office helping to prosecute mobsters in NY back in the day. Diametrically opposed to Rudy in politics and temperament, though.

[evan]

Ok, so Manafort only goes to prison for the rest of his life, not 5 the rest of his lives. The operation was success but the patient didn’t make it…

[busdrivermike]

Manafort will never be acquitted of any of the charges. Mueller got a gift here, because if Trump were to pardon Manafort’s convictions , Mueller can still retry the other charges.

[rptwiz]

I disagree that talking about the Manafort mistrial counts is “re-litigating”. With Trump and the Rs hanging their hats on that, it’s critical to take that talking point away from them. And a retrial IS re-litigating, which is exactly the point. The issues weren’t litigated enough for the jury to reach a unanimous verdict. Perhaps some counts that would always be the case (like the FSB bank fraud where the CEO was complicit at a minimum).

Besides, there won’t be a retrial anyway because Manafort is toast already and will likely cut a deal.

[bodie1]

Can he be tried on those mistrial charges, again? Or does it really matter at this point?

[nemo]

This trial featured:

1. A judge, openly hostile to the prosecution, hampering and denigrating the prosecutors;

2. A president attacking the prosecution and identifying himself with the defendant as the jury deliberated.

The second element is practically unheard of. We have no way of measuring the extent to which it influenced jurors. The trial was not merely a shambles, it was a demonstration of the corruption of the rule of law in favor of the right and Republican interests in particular. I don’t think that’s hyperbolic. Obstacles were placed before the prosecution that would not have been there if the defendant were a Democrat, let alone an African-American.

[reggid]

He could be, but it will likely not matter, especially with his other trials still to come, and the difference in this case in sentencing would likely be largely meaningless.

[erik_t]

You must be new to the Democratic party

Everything must be endlessly relitigated in favor of finding the most frustrating, most upsetting, most unfair angle with which we may self-flagellate, forever. It’s a rule.

[socalista]

Can’t just sleep in hair coats and use the days for other things?

[honeyboywilson]

‘“That’s hard to beat, when you’ve got the judge making the defense’ argument for them,” Cotter said.’

Three weeks ago I commented: “This judge has been sounding like a loose cannon to me for a while. I’m not optimistic about the outcome.”

I’ll stick by that comment. I think the prosecution was lucky to get 8 out of 18, given the antics of that judge.

[sparrowhawk]

Reading the defense’s complaints about the FBAR signatures, I’m wondering, if you were going to open a foreign bank account for the express purpose of hiding your foreign income from the Feds, would you go in and sign it with your regular signature, etc.? It just seems to me that you would be trying to obscure the connection as much as possible so this doesn’t really seem like a valid argument from the defense.

Furthermore, the defense also spent a good deal of its FBAR-related cross examination asking witnesses to compare the signatures used to open the foreign accounts allegedly owned by Manafort, to Manafort’s signature on other documents, including those found at his home. They returned to this signature comparison again in closing arguments: “Clearly something was going on with how the foreign banks were signed,” Manafort attorney Richard Westling said.

“That bank account in Cyprus was opened by someone name Edward Hyde. I have no idea who that might be. It doesn’t even look like my signature.”

[bloix]

The judge can permit this but doesn’t have to. Where there are counts on which the jury was deadlocked, meaning a re-trial is a possibility, it’s better practice not to let the attorneys talk to the jury because they will certainly use that opportunity to try to figure out how to win the retrial.

[lestatdelc]

OT: Wow the new site design sucks.

Most of it won’t load.