A New York state judge has dismissed mortgage fraud charges brought against Paul Manafort, reports say.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1268983
NY Judge Dismisses State-level Manafort Prosecution On Double Jeopardy Grounds | Talking Points Memo
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1268983
Will tRump now use his pardon powers?
Charge the MF’r with something else that will stick!
1 Like
Fuck that.
1 Like
It will be interesting to see the opinion and the appeal. To me it makes sense that you could violate federal and state laws in the same criminal transaction, but IANAL.
1 Like
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that it is not a violation of the double jeopardy clause to put a person on trial for the same offense under both state and federal law. But unlike most states, New York law (until very recently?) prohibited duplicative federal and state prosecutions. I thought Manafort’s state court indictment was mostly duplicative of the federal charges, although the state tax evasion charges still seemed pretty clearly appropriate under state law. I’m surprised the judge apparently dismissed everything, but not surprised that he tossed most of it.
3 Likes
Cuomo signed the legislation closing the double jeopardy loophole on 10/16/2019
Manafort was charged by NY with his crimes on 3/13/19. Maybe the retroactive application of the law was an issue?
2 Likes
The cover pic suggests Manafort is enjoying the stress-free life of prison as compared to fucking with Russian mobsters–either that or he’s getting a good supply of _______[fill in the blank] pumped into his bloodstream. Then again he just had a cardiac event, so maybe I misread his lyin’ eyes. Anyway, Trump might see this as the right time to hand out a pardon or commutation.
Making the double-jeopardy legislation retroactive would pose a pretty obvious ex post facto problem. I assume the new legislation would not apply to Manafort, and the trial court judge obviously agrees with me. Not even clear whether the prosecutors argued it was applicable.
Judicial Experience:
- Acting Justice, Supreme Court, New York County, Appointed by Chief Adminstrative Judge, Jonathan Lippman, 2004 to Present
- Judge, Court of Claims, Appointed by Governor George Pataki, 2003 to 2009; Re-appointed by Governor David Paterson, 2009 to 2018
So, another GOP appointee.
This WaPo commenter makes some good points:
Looks like the judge is more concerned with upholding Rule of Law than politics.
Prohibiting double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same offense) is a fundamental part of Rule of Law. If the judge perceived NY’s effort in this way, then he was right to dismiss.
Of course, NY can appeal and explain why this is not double jeopardy.
As for Manafort, he is plainly a loser, and Tramp doesn’t like losers. Tramp is going to be averse to pardoning Manafort. Manafort could die before the pardon occurs.
Gates got an extremely short sentence, because he cooperated with prosecutors.
So, if you’re a Tramp lackey whose testimony is compelled, cooperating looks like a surer thing than waiting for a pardon.
Importantly, Tramp cannot claim the NY judicial system is against him . They’re just doing their job of being judges. This will be an issue when he leaves the presidency and faces a bunch of NY lawsuits.
While both the New York State and U.S. constitutions provide for “dual sovereignty” — allowing for successive federal and state prosecutions — Wiley found that the Vance case violated a New York state statute barring double prosecution for the same offense.
So in lieu of fundamental powers of sovereignty established in the US and NY constitutions, the Judge found a NY law that says he can throw it out. IANAL, but how does NY not overturn this on appeal to protect the states sovereign right to charge people who break it’s law?