Jump to content

Manafort Trial


Grandioso

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm sure you've had cases covered by the media.  God bless 'em, but they generally have no clue how things actually work in a courtroom.

I'm talking about lawyers, though (Jonathan Turley), and most recently another federal judge, Nancy Gertner.  Bizarro.

 

And yeah the media gets it grossly wrong more often than they get it right, but almost all of my cases have been high-dollar snoozefests.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience with press coverage of any type on issues with which I have familiarity and can rate the accuracy of the coverage, I tend to assume that they get at least 30% of the story wrong on a consistent basis. I have seen quotes that were completely made up and I know they were made up because I was in the room when the discussion was taking place and heard every comment.

That said, a free press is still vitally important to our democracy, inaccuracies and all, and I despise Trump's efforts to undermine the institution in an effort to save his skin or make himself look good or whatever it is he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, deech said:

Has any movie ever even covered a charge conference?  LOL 

Interestingly, perhaps the most heated and dramatic moment of my career came in an informal charge conference in the jury room.  Opposing counsel and I damned near came to blows (he was a loudmouth bully, I was a young lawyer who stood my ground).  At a certain point, the judge said "we need a break," and separated us.  After I left the room, the opposing lawyer made some smartass remark about "can you believe that punk?" and the judge snapped back "I think he's handling you just fine."

But, the judge DID order opposing counsel and I to go to a bar afterwards, and drink together until we worked our shit out.  We did, and reached a truce.

Still shoulda punched that sonofabitch in the bar.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Maybe in your courtrooms.  I remember the one time in Judge McBryde's court where there was something right out of "My Cousin Vinny."  Plaintiff of Nigerian descent was testifying and the Judge kept asking him to repeat himself because he couldn't understand him through his thick accent.  Finally, the judge asks, "what is your native language?", to which he replies, "English."  Not to be outdone, he then followed up with the classic, "where are you from?".  

In fairness, I commenced the practice of law in Fort Worth, right after McBryde took the bench.  Cantankerousness is old hat to me.  But I have seen it far and wide to a greater or lesser degree.

 

At my very first hearing before him, I was local counsel.  My client (not his lawyer, but the client), ran a little late, so I dumped them off in front of the courthouse.  The hearing commenced when I was not there, and I slunk in about 5 minutes into it.  I had no role in the hearing other than to introduce the regular counsel, who had been admitted pro hac vice.  At the first recess, McBryde says "I hereby rescind my order that TwiceHorn show cause why he should not be held in contempt.  I understand now that he is merely local counsel."

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Reminds me of virtually every TV show that tries to depict courtroom scenes.  So few get it even close to accurate.

Franklin and Bash on TNT. I really liked that show. And they got a ton of shit right (comparatively). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In fairness, I commenced the practice of law in Fort Worth, right after McBryde took the bench.  Cantankerousness is old hat to me.  But I have seen it far and wide to a greater or lesser degree.

 

At my very first hearing before him, I was local counsel.  My client (not his lawyer, but the client), ran a little late, so I dumped them off in front of the courthouse.  The hearing commenced when I was not there, and I slunk in about 5 minutes into it.  I had no role in the hearing other than to introduce the regular counsel, who had been admitted pro hac vice.  At the first recess, McBryde says "I hereby rescind my order that TwiceHorn show cause why he should not be held in contempt.  I understand now that he is merely local counsel."

LOL.  After my hearing the judge asked for briefing on Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff and then a month or so later ruled against them because we hadn't sent a warning letter (Nor had we filed a motion for sanctions; it was sua sponte from the bench).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Interestingly, perhaps the most heated and dramatic moment of my career came in an informal charge conference in the jury room.  Opposing counsel and I damned near came to blows (he was a loudmouth bully, I was a young lawyer who stood my ground).  At a certain point, the judge said "we need a break," and separated us.  After I left the room, the opposing lawyer made some smartass remark about "can you believe that punk?" and the judge snapped back "I think he's handling you just fine."

But, the judge DID order opposing counsel and I to go to a bar afterwards, and drink together until we worked our shit out.  We did, and reached a truce.

Still shoulda punched that sonofabitch in the bar.

Sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Ellis receiving threats:

 

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The judge in the tax and bank fraud trial against one-time Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort said Friday he’s been threatened over the case, denying a request from media outlets to release the names and addresses of the jurors. 

Judge T.S. Ellis III said he's not going to reveal the specifics of the threats he received. 

"I have the marshals' protection," he said. 

In denying the request from CNN, the Associated Press, Politico, NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post and BuzzFeed News, Ellis said he has no reason to believe the jurors wouldn’t also be exposed to threats if their names were revealed. 

Link

No mention of the timing of the threats, i.e. pre-trial, this week, or continuous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Interdasting.  Not sure why Mr. Patterico the tweetmeister would be up in arms about a chart that wasn't used in front of the jury (kind of like this).  Perhaps the criminal practitioners can comment on how often it is permitted to "rephrase" reasonable doubt using demonstrative evidence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That tweet is 100% incorrect. I’ve seen that exact chart or the information shown on it AT LEAST 100 trials.

 

LOL. In fact, I have the exact chart in my office.

 

Caveat: My statements can only be guaranteed accurate in Texas state courts.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now some of those jurors will get visits to explain why he is not guilty 

I’m really confused as to why Judge Ellis feels it necessary to protect himself with federal marshals while the jury is unsequestered and free to receive influence/threats from anyone...

If they come back after the weekend with a NG verdict this will be even more suspect in my mind.

Can any of our legal eagles comment on why the jury isn’t afforded protection from undue influence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Party_Taco said:


I’m really confused as to why Judge Ellis feels it necessary to protect himself with federal marshals while the jury is unsequestered and free to receive influence/threats from anyone...

If they come back after the weekend with a NG verdict this will be even more suspect in my mind.

Can any of our legal eagles comment on why the jury isn’t afforded protection from undue influence?

First, to one degree or another, a federal judge is always under the protection of the marshals.  There's nothing reported to indicate that it's special protection, or that Ellis ordered or requested anything special.  I'm sure the Marshals have some protocol to follow under these situations.  I kind of read Ellis' statement as a dismissal of the threats, an old federal judge's version of "come at me bro," rather than "my safety is assured by a special praetorian guard established by the US Marshals, including Raylan Givens."

My first instinct is that the "threats" concern his treatment of the prosecution team, rather than being rooskies or trumpkins or antifa trying to influence the outcome.  I suspect if they were the latter, the jury would have been sequestered.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

My first instinct is that the "threats" concern his treatment of the prosecution team, rather than being rooskies or trumpkins or antifa trying to influence the outcome.  I suspect if they were the latter, the jury would have been sequestered.

Threats to Ellis being based on his treatment of the prosecution was my first instinct as well.  But threats were also made to jurors..  Threats to Ellis and jurors may not have originated from the same source:

 

Quote

Matthew Kelley, the lawyer representing the news organizations, argued in a hearing on the sealed records that there should be a presumption of openness when it comes to the names of the jurors. Kelley said there had not been any specific threats against the jurors, to which Ellis shot back, “I can tell you there have.”

Others have pointed out that it's a real head scratcher that the jury has not been sequestered, co-mingling with the public in and around the courthouse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Threats to Ellis being based on his treatment of the prosecution was my first instinct as well.  But threats were also made to jurors..  Threats to Ellis and jurors may not have originated from the same source:

 

Others have pointed out that it's a real head scratcher that the jury has not been sequestered, co-mingling with the public in and around the courthouse.

That is odd, then. I suppose he's trying to balance hardship to the jury against credibility of the threats.  Good find. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, maninblack said:

 

I have no knowledge of how this works, but is it normal to pursue this info?  Is it always publically available info? 

This all reminds me of a great line. 

Who trusts a justice system where all the smart people get out of jury duty?

Edited by GRHorn
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

I have no knowledge of how this works, but is it normal to pursue this info?  Is it always publically available info? 

This all reminds me of a great line. 

Who trusts a justice system where all the smart people get out of jury duty?

Do you really believe this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

I have no knowledge of how this works, but is it normal to pursue this info?  Is it always publically available info? 

This all reminds me of a great line. 

Who trusts a justice system where all the smart people get out of jury duty?

The initial assumption is that all court filings are public record. 

That said, things (motions, discovery, other evidence) commonly are filed "under seal," meaning only counsel of record can view, and testimony regarding those items can also be sealed from public view.  Filing under seal is typically done by order of the court to protect an individual's privacy, to protect trade secrets or other confidential information, national security information, ongoing investigations, identity of confidential informants or undercover LEOs etc. etc..  The order can be had on motion of the party seeking to file under seal or by agreement of the parties to file certain material under seal, with the agreement reviewed and endorsed by the court.  In Texas civil courts these days, a proposal to file documents under seal must be posted for a period of time to permit the public to comment, which rarely happens, before any order is signed.

 

In most jurisdictions, the identity of jurors is not revealed until after they deliver their verdict, or if a juror is dismissed for one reason or another.  The reasoning for this seems rather obvious:  to avoid juror tampering and harassment.

 

The media is rather infamous for opposing these orders sealing documents, evidence and testimony, on the idea that the public has an interest in open trials and seeing all the evidence, which is true.  Typically, though, materials are sealed for good reason by the judge and the media isn't going to win too often.  Years ago, agreements to seal documents were made in civil litigation to keep damaging evidence out of the hands of the public, which is a bad deal.  I don't believe this happens too often anymore as most rules require the judge to review any such agreement and to consider the public interest and the motivations for sealing the material.  The judge may be off a little here and there, but there don't seem to be wholesale conspiracies to conceal pertinent information from public view for insidious reasons.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The initial assumption is that all court filings are public record. 

That said, things (motions, discovery, other evidence) commonly are filed "under seal," meaning only counsel of record can view, and testimony regarding those items can also be sealed from public view.  Filing under seal is typically done by order of the court to protect an individual's privacy, to protect trade secrets or other confidential information, national security information, ongoing investigations, identity of confidential informants or undercover LEOs etc. etc..  The order can be had on motion of the party seeking to file under seal or by agreement of the parties to file certain material under seal, with the agreement reviewed and endorsed by the court.  In Texas civil courts these days, a proposal to file documents under seal must be posted for a period of time to permit the public to comment, which rarely happens, before any order is signed.

 

In most jurisdictions, the identity of jurors is not revealed until after they deliver their verdict, or if a juror is dismissed for one reason or another.  The reasoning for this seems rather obvious:  to avoid juror tampering and harassment.

 

The media is rather infamous for opposing these orders sealing documents, evidence and testimony, on the idea that the public has an interest in open trials and seeing all the evidence, which is true.  Typically, though, materials are sealed for good reason by the judge and the media isn't going to win too often.  Years ago, agreements to seal documents were made in civil litigation to keep damaging evidence out of the hands of the public, which is a bad deal.  I don't believe this happens too often anymore as most rules require the judge to review any such agreement and to consider the public interest and the motivations for sealing the material.  The judge may be off a little here and there, but there don't seem to be wholesale conspiracies to conceal pertinent information from public view for insidious reasons.

Thanks for the info.  My first instinct is that a Tv network aggressively pursuing the contact info of jurors in a politically charged trial is poor form. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Thanks for the info.  My first instinct is that a Tv network aggressively pursuing the contact info of jurors in a politically charged trial is poor form. 

Yes, I agree.  To an extent, it is incumbent on the media to test the reasons trial and court materials are not made public. Years ago, pharmaceutical companies, among others, would attempt (and often succeed) in sealing from public view documents related to product testing that would have scared the crap out of people and provoked more lawsuits.  The media was instrumental in uncovering this practice.  But, in this particular case, I think they may be overstepping a bit, particularly with the juror information.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea why the press thinks it is so important to know who the jurors are.  We will know everything about each juror within a week after the verdict is read after the jury does it grand publicity tour on Good Morning America etc, while pimping their soon to be published books.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 2:24 AM, Fudge Nuggets said:

No idea why the press thinks it is so important to know who the jurors are.  We will know everything about each juror within a week after the verdict is read after the jury does it grand publicity tour on Good Morning America etc, while pimping their soon to be published books.

th?id=OIP.qAuMp_UBiuvibwE58RcS5wHaFj&pid

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...