Jump to content

Manafort Trial


Grandioso

Recommended Posts

Jurors had questions.

 

Analysis please.

 

Judge T.S. Ellis told the courtroom Thursday he would instruct the jury to rely on their "collective recollection" regarding their questions on "shelf" companies and foreign banking filing requirements. He would give them no further answers on those points. 

Regarding their question about "reasonable doubt" — the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant — he said that the prosecutors had to prove their case not "beyond possible doubt," but beyond "doubt based on reason."

The jury had also asked if the court could match exhibit numbers to indictments. Ellis said the court could not amend the exhibit list.

Edited by Gil Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the best I can find on the content of the questions - https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jury-submits-note-to-court-in-paul-manafort-trial:

The first question was about the requirements to file FBAR reports. At the request of prosecutor Greg Andres, Judge Ellis re-read the jury instructions about the law regarding FBAR reports.

The second question asked for a definition of “shelf” companies, and their filing requirements. Ellis told the jury they will have to rely on their collective recollection from the testimony and evidence in the trial.

The third question asked to redefine or give explanation of the term reasonable doubt. Ellis responded that reasonable doubt means “doubt based on reason,” and that the government is not required to prove guilt beyond “all possible doubt.”

The final question asked by the jury was whether the exhibit list in the case could be amended to reflect the indictment counts. Ellis said no, that jurors must rely on their memory of which exhibits were used during certain parts of testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Jurors had questions.

 

Analysis please.

 

Judge T.S. Ellis told the courtroom Thursday he would instruct the jury to rely on their "collective recollection" regarding their questions on "shelf" companies and foreign banking filing requirements. He would give them no further answers on those points. 

Regarding their question about "reasonable doubt" — the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant — he said that the prosecutors had to prove their case not "beyond possible doubt," but beyond "doubt based on reason."

The jury had also asked if the court could match exhibit numbers to indictments. Ellis said the court could not amend the exhibit list.

 

25 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So the jury is the common clay of the new west?

Not necessarily.  Those sound like fair questions, all in all.  And as to the last one, that's on the prosecution.  One of the tedious things you need to do in your closing argument in a complex case is to directly flag the jury to the evidence they need to consider on each cause of action/count.

"How do we know that the purpose of transaction X was to avoid taxes, which is the second count you're charged with deciding?  The testimony of Gates.  Exhibit 4, the transfer documents, Exhibit 5, the email from Gates to Manafort about it, Exhibit 6, the email from Manafort to Gates in reply [etc. etc.]"  If there's a stack of shit in front of 'em, you need to tell 'em what to look at.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question about reasonable doubt is probably good for the prosecution.  You have some jurors in there confused about what constitutes "reasonable doubt," and the judge's answer lets them know that the standard is a lot lower than a lot of lay people think.  It's not "possible doubt"--yeah, it could be that space aliens came down and added a bunch of zeros to Manafort's bank account unbeknownst to him, but that's not reasonable doubt.

All-in-all, those strike me as reasonable and commonplace questions that you would expect to get out of a jury in a case like this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing I began to wonder about the day I looked at the counts against Manafort, was, did the government overcharge here?  I believe that they are unlikely to get stacking of the sentences, except for maybe the tax evasion plus the bank fraud, so having all these counts of the same crime serves no purpose and can only confuse the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing I began to wonder about the day I looked at the counts against Manafort, was, did the government overcharge here?  I believe that they are unlikely to get stacking of the sentences, except for maybe the tax evasion plus the bank fraud, so having all these counts of the same crime serves no purpose and can only confuse the jury.


i know you’re a lawyer, and by all accounts a helluva P/T lawyer, which means you’ve spent a good amount of time in a courtroom.

but as a criminal case you’re looking at this wholly and completely wrong.

they only need a guilty on one count.

think about it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

 


i know you’re a lawyer, and by all accounts a helluva P/T lawyer, which means you’ve spent a good amount of time in a courtroom.

but as a criminal case you’re looking at this wholly and completely wrong.

they only need a guilty on one count.

think about it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Fair point.

I am aware, however, that occasionally the government will whittle down somewhat duplicative charges (I assume here every tax return was a count and every loan and bank defrauded was a count, so not totally duplicative), for the purpose of simplifying for the jury.

Certainly done in civil cases a lot.

Just a thought out loud.

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

Fair point.
I am aware, however, that occasionally the government will whittle down somewhat duplicative charges (I assume here every tax return was a count and every loan and bank defrauded was a count, so not totally duplicative), for the purpose of simplifying for the jury.
Certainly done in civil cases a lot.
Just a thought out loud.


not quite...it’s a strategic thing, yes. but the rules differ from civil cases re: “same transaction or occurrence,” to use the language of civil procedure.

they could have brought 18 different cases one by one here if they chose to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2018 at 12:23 PM, Anastasis said:
How many federal charges will Paul Manafort be convicted on by year-end 2018?

How many federal charges will Paul Manafort be convicted on by year-end 2018?

Market Type: Linked

End Date: 12/31/2018 11:59 PM (ET)

Status: Open

 

Trade shares from this page by clicking any price in bold. For more information on an individual prediction, click on the name or image.

GUILTY.MANA.2018 Latest Buy Yes Sell Yes Buy No Sell No
13¢  5¢ 13¢ 8¢ 92¢ 87¢
7¢  1¢ 8¢ 7¢ 93¢ 92¢
15¢ NC 9¢ 4¢ 96¢ 91¢
34¢  1¢ 35¢ 20¢ 80¢ 65¢
30¢  20¢ 30¢ 26¢ 74¢ 70¢
8¢ NC 15¢ 4¢ 96¢ 85¢
5¢  2¢ 5¢ 3¢ 97¢ 95¢
 

The Disqus comment section is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon when making any decision to buy or sell shares. PredictIt does not monitor, evaluate, or assess the accuracy of comments. PredictIt participants should seek out independent, verifiable information before making any investment decision.

big moves today on:

guilt on 1-5    +.17

guilt on 6-10  +.13

guilt on 21-30   -.27

https://www.predictit.org/Market/4674/How-many-federal-charges-will-Paul-Manafort-be-convicted-on-by-year-end-2018

 

Five years for each guilty verdict do you suppose? (WAG)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, zork said:

big moves today on:

guilt on 1-5    +.17

guilt on 6-10  +.13

guilt on 21-30   -.27

https://www.predictit.org/Market/4674/How-many-federal-charges-will-Paul-Manafort-be-convicted-on-by-year-end-2018

 

Five years for each guilty verdict do you suppose? (WAG)

No.  If by "guilty verdict" you mean guilty per count.  It doesn't work like that.  Initially, all sentences for each count will run concurrently.  The judge can make them run consecutively, but that is abnormal.  The max for bank fraud is 30 years.  For false tax return, it's 5 years.  Where along the spectrum of 0 to 30 and 0 to 5 the judge lands is initially up to the sentencing guidelines, where one of the most influential factors is the amount lost.  I have seen some thumbnail predictions of 15-20 from experienced "white collar" defense types.

But, we won't know how the guideline calculus works out until sentencing memoranda are filed by the parties after conviction and prior to sentencing.

Also, Ellis is hostile to extreme sentences resulting from mechanical application of the guidelines, or doing things like "stacking" (making sentences run consecutively).  http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2018/07/notable-district-judge-struggles-against-mandatory-minimums-especially-stacked-gun-charges.html

There are certain provisions of the federal criminal code that require stacking and Ellis pretty violently dislikes them, so I think it's fair to say he won't stack these.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point.
I am aware, however, that occasionally the government will whittle down somewhat duplicative charges (I assume here every tax return was a count and every loan and bank defrauded was a count, so not totally duplicative), for the purpose of simplifying for the jury.
Certainly done in civil cases a lot.
Just a thought out loud.

I assume the flip side is the multiple counts give the jury an opportunity to compromise. 3 out of 5 bank fraud convictions seems like the moderate, restrained decision, even if it doesn’t impact the sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tuco said:


I assume the flip side is the multiple counts give the jury an opportunity to compromise. 3 out of 5 bank fraud convictions seems like the moderate, restrained decision, even if it doesn’t impact the sentence.

Yeah, I think that's KE's point.  They only have to convict on one.  It's kind of a tension between "shooting with a rifle or shooting with a shotgun."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are media organizations trying to dox the jurors in this case?  Judge Ellis just squashed a request by the media to release the names of the jury. 

He also has US Marshals following him thanks to credible threats on his life.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/judge-in-manafort-trial-says-hes-been-threatened-over-case.html

Quote

The judge in Paul Manafort’s fraud trial said Friday he has received threats over the case.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III made the comments as the jury deliberated for the second day, and as he rejected a motion to release information about the jurors. He said he's confident the jurors would be threatened as well if their information was public. 

Ellis said that because of the threats against him, he travels with U.S. Marshals. 

 

“The Marshals go where I go,” Ellis said.

Earlier Friday morning, Ellis, a famously prickly judge known for his colorful comments, acknowledged facing criticism about how he’s handled this case.

At one point, Ellis told attorneys “I’m no stranger to criticism,” but said “this case has brought it to a new level.”

A number of news organizations – the Washington Post, New York Times, AP, CNN, NBC, Politico and BuzzFeed – filed a motion to unseal all the records so far in the Manafort case.

But in rejecting the motion, Ellis said he doesn’t “feel right” about releasing the names of jurors, saying, “to do so would create a risk of harm to them.”

The judge also denied a motion to unseal all the bench conferences and sidebars, which have been sealed. Ellis said all that will be released to the public at the end of this trial.

After a trial spanning nearly three weeks, Manafort, 69, is awaiting a verdict on tax evasion and bank fraud charges.

He has been accused of hiding income earned from his Ukrainian political work from the IRS. He’s also accused of fraudulently obtaining millions in bank loans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it odd that I keep seeing these articles criticizing Ellis' courtroom behavior.  Seems to me anyone that's been involved in federal litigation knows that there is a federal district judge sitting in a courtroom somewhere right this minute abusing counsel for one or both parties.  This isnt the first high-profile case Ellis has tried and I am quite certain that there are other cantankerous federal judges presiding over high-profile trials without getting raked over the coals.  I guess it's just the Trump connection.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems to me anyone that's been involved in federal litigation knows that there is a federal district judge sitting in a courtroom somewhere right this minute abusing counsel for one or both parties. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 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.

In fact, have you ever seen a case or legal issue accurately described by the media? Whenever my wife asks me about something she read in the news regarding a legal issue, I tell her they probably got pretty much everything wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...