Discussion: Judge Weighs Whether To Toss Key Evidence In Mueller's Case Against Manafort

Perhaps it’s just me being not a lawyer…

But I don’t see how this could establish an unreasonable search even if the employee wasn’t authorized. I don’t see Team Manafort arguing the FBI coerced the guy with the key whose name was on the lease to open the lockup. It seems eminently reasonable to ask him, and to expect that if he lacked authority he would know and say so.

If their argument is “well, they asked nicely and he showed them, but he shouldn’t have showed them so you’ve got to exclude the evidence”, this creates a huge get-out-of-jail-free card for all corporate criminal masterminds: store their evidence in a lockup where the guy with the key is a very agreeable guy who always yields to authority, make sure investigators ask him for evidence, know that he’ll show it, and then have it thrown out because surprise! he didn’t have formal authority.

16 Likes

Yup.

1 Like

9 Likes

Last time I hired a pet sitter when I still rented, I am almost certain I didn’t put her name on my lease.

31 Likes

Jackson spent a lot of the hearing quizzing Zehnle on the case law that backed up his argument that the employee did not have the authority to give the agent access to the unit, at one point telling Zehnle she was “shocked” by how few cases had been cited to back up his arguments on mutual use.

Oopsie! Manafort forgot to pay his lawyer. Bad move.

3 Likes

6 Likes

That’s not what happened though. The FBI didn’t open the boxes until they came back with a warrant, presumably using the labels for probable cause:

Instead, the FBI Agent entered and observed a number of boxes and a filing cabinet inside the premises, as well as some writing on the sides of some boxes. He then left the storage facility.

Observed writing on the sides of some boxes, not opened boxes and observed documents inside them.

19 Likes

Then Bob should keep his personal school records somewhere else as by way of not being a private space he’s either stupid or shit out of luck.

12 Likes

Worst episode EVAH!!

10 Likes

> The employee’s name was on the lease for the unit, and the employee told the agent that he placed items inside the unit for Manafort.

Even for a trumpanzee judge, this seems pretty damn dispositive to me. Of course, I’m not an attorney, so your mileage may vary.

5 Likes

Bad analogy by Cohen’s lawyers. Since when is a Pet sitter’s name on the lease to the home or dwelling of the pet sitters boss?

If we have the facts of the case correct, there is now way in hell the seized stuff gets thrown out of the case. He (the agent) looked in the unit, he did not take anything, there is no mention of turning or otherwise altering the objects in the storage unit, and then he waited for a proper warrant to seize the items. Cohen has lied to the FBI, he could not be trusted, which is why they took the steps they did to seize all assets from Cohen. Then the judge goes out of her way to appoint a special master to carefully parse through the seized material just in case the attorney client privilege could come in to play. During this both sets of lawyers are able to review what is being seized and authenticated as evidence.

9 Likes

Mueller is now meeting with Manafort’s pet sitter.

25 Likes

This is typical lawyering. Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, even longshots. And billing by the hour the whole time. They may or may not tell Manafort what will work and what probably won’t. They’re on retainer, spending the money down, until a new infusion of cash is needed. It’s a big game for them, and a very lucrative one.

5 Likes

When the FBI saw stuff labeled Bob’s stuff, they went for a search warrant. They did not rummage around In that stuff.

The guy could let them in to see what they could see but not to riummage.

10 Likes

I think your read is 100% correct. Jackson is letting them argue, but by doing so she is just making sure that the record is good when she rules against them.

This piece quotes Judge Jackson more extensively, and if that is what she said, then there is little chance Maniford gets far… https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/judge-questions-ex-trump-campaign-chiefs-bid-to-suppress-evidence-idUSKCN1IO19F

10 Likes

However the Judge in this case was appointed by Obama. Queue much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the WH when she doesn’t buy Paulie boy’s BS.

4 Likes

appeal-proofing.

8 Likes

It will aid the prosecution in the event of an appeal…

2 Likes

I agree with several others who have said things intimating that the judge is not “grappling” with anything. She is simply allowing Manafort’s attorneys to exhaust as many potential avenues of appeal as they can stomach at this stage. If she doesn’t let them go through the motions, they will appeal and the appeals may be granted. Since she’s allowing them to make their arguments, they may still appeal, but the appeals are less likely to be granted.

Having said all that - IANAL and I don’t play one on TV. I do, however, have a gram or two of common sense. What I wrote seems, to me, a common sense view of how I believe the system would/should work.

4 Likes

I understand that. The FBI was investigating Manafort, so it was reasonable to have a preliminary suspicion there might be items germane to their case in the locker. No lawyer here. Is it ever the case that to protect the integrity of a case you get two warrants? The first one to establish a reasonable suspicion something merits a search in the first place, and then a second warrant to conduct a more intrusive search. The FBI felt they needed in the locker to make the initial assessment. I guess Manafort is saying that initial visit needed a warrant? So why not cover your ass and get a judge to allow the initial visit, on the condition a more intrusive search requires a second warrant granting expanded authority?

2 Likes