What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Paul Manafort Thread (1 Viewer)

Rachel Maddow last night was talking about some interesting developments in this trial. Apparently on cross-examination of Rick Gates, Manafort's attorneys started asking questions about his relationship and time with the Trump campaign. At which point, the prosecutors asked for a sidebar. And the conversations/transcripts between the judge and the lawyers had to be sealed due to an ongoing criminal investigation.

 
Apparently defense asked Gates about his Russia testimony to Mueller yesterday and the special counsel objected because he didn't want details of the Russia investigation going public. The question wasn't answered and the transcript of the sidebar was sealed. So close to getting some actual info :kicksrock:

Fun detail from the story- apparently they pipe white noise into the courtroom during sidebars like this one. How unusual is this? I have never litigated and have no idea.

 
Tom Skerritt said:
Rachel Maddow last night was talking about some interesting developments in this trial. Apparently on cross-examination of Rick Gates, Manafort's attorneys started asking questions about his relationship and time with the Trump campaign. At which point, the prosecutors asked for a sidebar. And the conversations/transcripts between the judge and the lawyers had to be sealed due to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Click to expand...


TobiasFunke said:
Apparently defense asked Gates about his Russia testimony to Mueller yesterday and the special counsel objected because he didn't want details of the Russia investigation going public. The question wasn't answered and the transcript of the sidebar was sealed. So close to getting some actual info :kicksrock:

Fun detail from the story- apparently they pipe white noise into the courtroom during sidebars like this one. How unusual is this? I have never litigated and have no idea.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm (Z) is talking about. :thumbup:

 
The Z Machine said:
Hey, lawdudes, can you guys chill with the mother-in-law talk and get back to the roasting of witnesses in the actual trial?
Click to expand...
If only there was a thread for it...

 
TobiasFunke said:
Apparently defense asked Gates about his Russia testimony to Mueller yesterday and the special counsel objected because he didn't want details of the Russia investigation going public. The question wasn't answered and the transcript of the sidebar was sealed. So close to getting some actual info :kicksrock:

Fun detail from the story- apparently they pipe white noise into the courtroom during sidebars like this one. How unusual is this? I have never litigated and have no idea.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of it.  But that actually sounds brilliant. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I just hope that your clients, who seek advice, who pay for it, follow it, though I am certain that they often do not.  I bet that when they do your success rate is remarkably better than when they do not. 

This is the bane of all of my Defense attorney friends. I am certain Henry and others would concur. They know they need your help, but they just can't take it in many instances.
Click to expand...
They want miracles.  It’s important to explain to them that when they walked into your office their options were already limited.  

 
Let's sum up the prosecution's case:

Manafort lived well beyond his means, despite making tens of millions of dollars in foreign consulting fees;

He laundered money through 15 different businesses in Cyprus, never disclosing any of this money to the IRS;

His bookkeeper said she did not know he had offshore accounts.    These books were then used to as a basis for his tax returns.

His accountant filed knowingly fraudulent returns which also did not disclose the foreign accounts and which misrepresented income as loans; and

He misrepresented his income on applications for bank loans, which the bank knew and approved anyway because the CEO of the bank wanted a spot in the Trump administration.

Manafort's response to this is going to be that Gates was a lying swindler and that he didn't know any of this was happening?

 
-fish- said:
Let's sum up the prosecution's case:

Manafort lived well beyond his means, despite making tens of millions of dollars in foreign consulting fees;

He laundered money through 15 different businesses in Cyprus, never disclosing any of this money to the IRS;

His bookkeeper said she did not know he had offshore accounts.    These books were then used to as a basis for his tax returns.

His accountant filed knowingly fraudulent returns which also did not disclose the foreign accounts and which misrepresented income as loans; and

He misrepresented his income on applications for bank loans, which the bank knew and approved anyway because the CEO of the bank wanted a spot in the Trump administration.

Manafort's response to this is going to be that Gates was a lying swindler and that he didn't know any of this was happening?
Click to expand...
yep.

And that the loans would have been granted anyway, so "no harm, no foul."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Manafort taking the stand would've been an incredibly glorious train wreck and I'm sad it didn't happen.

 
Henry Ford said:
Not a criminal lawyer, but I'd say their best chance is to argue that the State failed to prove its case.  No sense giving them more chances.
Click to expand...
They already got a chance to cross Gates and the accountant.  Not really sure who other than Manafort himself could speak to his lack of knowledge of what was happening.  So they'd have to take a gigantic risk to really present much of an affirmative case at all.  So yeah, I think it's pretty much as we'd expect it to go.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Not a criminal lawyer, but I'd say their best chance is to argue that the State failed to prove its case.  No sense giving them more chances.
Click to expand...
how do you defend the allegations?  the defense attorney's were dealt a 7 2 and the prosecution were dealt pocket A's.  they have his emails, testimony against him, bank records belonging to him...all for the enrichment/benefit of Paul Manafort...they just have to cross the fingers that someone doesn't believe the clear evidence that was presented before them.

 
Banger said:
how do you defend the allegations?  the defense attorney's were dealt a 7 2 and the prosecution were dealt pocket A's.  they have his emails, testimony against him, bank records belonging to him...all for the enrichment/benefit of Paul Manafort...they just have to cross the fingers that someone doesn't believe the clear evidence that was presented before them.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter what happens if you have been promised a pardon anyway.

 
Banger said:
how do you defend the allegations?  the defense attorney's were dealt a 7 2 and the prosecution were dealt pocket A's.  they have his emails, testimony against him, bank records belonging to him...all for the enrichment/benefit of Paul Manafort...they just have to cross the fingers that someone doesn't believe the clear evidence that was presented before them.
Click to expand...
I'm in the middle of re-watching the Sopranos.  I recently saw the episodes of Junior's trial and Bobby comments to Junior that they had a set of eyes on the door they took the jurors.  Don't know why that just randomly popped into my head. Sorry for the small hi-jack.

:shrug:

 
whoknew said:
Manafort rested. Won't present a case. 

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I don't think that's too surprising. @Zow or @Ditkaless Wonders can probably confirm or tell me I'm an idiot.
Click to expand...
It's not that surprising.  Since the burden of proof rests squarely on the state the defendant isn't required to present a defense and the jury will be instructed to not hold that against them. I'd say that in 1/2 of the criminal trials I've defended (probably around a couple hundred or so) we've strategically chosen not to present any additional evidence.  Bear in mind, this doesn't mean that the defense isn't eliciting evidence through the state's witnesses on cross-examination which support the defense's theory of the case. 

I haven't paid a ton of attention to the Manafort trial because I've had my own to worry about but my understanding (mainly from comments in this thread) is that the defense's theory of the case is that Gates was the villain.  Obviously he's testified so they don't need to recall him.  I'm mildly surprised, given the gravity of the case and Manafort's financial advantages, they didn't call an expert to explain particular issues favorable to the defense, but I'd imagine the defense considered the pros and cons and decided presenting no evidence was the best choice.  I'd note that, technically, the decision whether Manafort testifies is solely up to Manafort.  But, I also imagine that Manafort is smart enough to listen to his lawyer(s) regarding whether to do so. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Particularly on white collar stuff, I think juries tend to take some time.  They might spend all afternoon just trying to understand the jury instructions.  
Click to expand...
Plus isn't there also multiple dozen counts? Ideally, a jury should go through each one individually.  That'll take time. 

 
The Dude said:
But the lawyers would still be doing thier job.
Click to expand...
Unless Manafort had a witness that could exonerate him, or he could testify on his own behalf without opening the door to a whole lot of other issues and refute the evidence against him, there's not a lot they can do other than the cross they've already done and the motions they've filed  (I understand they made two separate motions for directed verdict and/or dismissal since yesterday).  

 
Banger said:
how do you defend the allegations?  the defense attorney's were dealt a 7 2 and the prosecution were dealt pocket A's.  they have his emails, testimony against him, bank records belonging to him...all for the enrichment/benefit of Paul Manafort...they just have to cross the fingers that someone doesn't believe the clear evidence that was presented before them.
Click to expand...
This is a fair analogy but to extend it further to account for the burden of proof aspect (a point a good defense attorney will hammer home) the defense may only need to hit a pair or slightly better to win the hand. 

 
Zow said:
It's not that surprising.  Since the burden of proof rests squarely on the state the defendant isn't required to present a defense and the jury will be instructed to not hold that against them. I'd say that in 1/2 of the criminal trials I've defended (probably around a couple hundred or so) we've strategically chosen not to present any additional evidence.  Bear in mind, this doesn't mean that the defense isn't eliciting evidence through the state's witnesses on cross-examination which support the defense's theory of the case. 

I haven't paid a ton of attention to the Manafort trial because I've had my own to worry about but my understanding (mainly from comments in this thread) is that the defense's theory of the case is that Gates was the villain.  Obviously he's testified so they don't need to recall him.  I'm mildly surprised, given the gravity of the case and Manafort's financial advantages, they didn't call an expert to explain particular issues favorable to the defense, but I'd imagine the defense considered the pros and cons and decided presenting no evidence was the best choice.  I'd note that, technically, the decision whether Manafort testifies is solely up to Manafort.  But, I also imagine that Manafort is smart enough to listen to his lawyer(s) regarding whether to do so. 
Click to expand...
A U of Maryland law professor was on local radio yesterday largely agreeing with this analysis (before we knew whether Manafort would testify or not). He said right now the defense has a chance to make this case about Gates and his credibility but that if Manafort testifies, the case becomes about Manafort. And prosecutors would have a chance to go through every document with his signature on it, asking him if he signed it and/or authorized its preparation. Not good if you want to appear in the dark and misled by your buddy.

 
roadkill1292 said:
A U of Maryland law professor was on local radio yesterday largely agreeing with this analysis (before we knew whether Manafort would testify or not). He said right now the defense has a chance to make this case about Gates and his credibility but that if Manafort testifies, the case becomes about Manafort. And prosecutors would have a chance to go through every document with his signature on it, asking him if he signed it and/or authorized its preparation. Not good if you want to appear in the dark and misled by your buddy.
Click to expand...
Yeah that makes sense. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
LOL, Judge tells jury to ignore everything he said.

- I believe that judges act like cantankerous prima donnas all the time, but I'd have to think this is fairly rare.
Click to expand...
In my jurisdiction there’s a standard instruction the judge gives the jury which instructs them to automatically ignore any of the comments the judge may make regarding the facts during the trial.

Having to reiterate it later regarding a specific instance would be rare. 

 
squistion said:
Wow, this really was a rocket docket. Trial started a little over two week ago. I don't know if that would be better for the defendant or the prosecution.
Click to expand...
It would have lasted longer but the prosecution only wanted to talk about his lies and crimes. So unfair! 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
They already got a chance to cross Gates and the accountant.  Not really sure who other than Manafort himself could speak to his lack of knowledge of what was happening.  So they'd have to take a gigantic risk to really present much of an affirmative case at all.  So yeah, I think it's pretty much as we'd expect it to go.  
Click to expand...
There were reports that the DOJ had looked into this years ago and declined to prosecute...I suppose they could have tried to get testimony regarding that, but barring that, there’s no other witnesses I can imagine them calling...

 
Rove! said:
There were reports that the DOJ had looked into this years ago and declined to prosecute...I suppose they could have tried to get testimony regarding that, but barring that, there’s no other witnesses I can imagine them calling...
Click to expand...
You can't really get false rumors into evidence.  I suppose he could have introduced evidence of the the lawsuit the former Prime Minister of Ukraine filed against Manafort in 2011 alleging that he skimmed money from natural gas contracts in the Ukraine, laundered the money through real estate deals in New York, and then funneled the money back to prosecute the former prime minister when he was getting paid by the next regime, but I don't see how that would have helped.

 
squistion said:
Wow, this really was a rocket docket.
Click to expand...
Term does not really apply to the length of the trial itself - but more in terms of getting the case to trial expeditiously.  The "docket" is the list of cases before a court - so moving these cases quickly through all of the pre-trial maneuvers is how the district gets the reputation.

 
Rove! said:
There were reports that the DOJ had looked into this years ago and declined to prosecute...I suppose they could have tried to get testimony regarding that, but barring that, there’s no other witnesses I can imagine them calling...
Click to expand...
The criminal acts continued into 2017. New acts new bites at the Apple. Walnuts shoulda laid low, but hey thug life.

 
Does the jury have to come back with 12-0 on guilty for the conviction on each charge?  I'm concerned a wingnut or two will screw/skew this up.

ETA: Should phrase better. Will 11-1 result in a not guilty?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA said:
Does the jury have to come back with 12-0 on guilty for the conviction on each charge?  I'm concerned a wingnut or two will screw/skew this up.

ETA: Should phrase better. Will 11-1 result in a not guilty?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that in federal court a unanimous decision has to be reached for either guilty or not guilty. 11-1 either way would result in a hung jury on that particular charge or count.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Stealthycat
Arkansas SAFE act "The nation's first trial over a state's ban on gender-confirming care for children "
3 4 5
Replies
236
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
The Commish
  • Locked
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: Defense Rests. Resisting the urge to go full HT and just purge this crapshow of a thread.
71 72 73
Replies
4K
Views
113K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Stealthycat
I learned something about the legal system
2 3
Replies
108
Views
7K
JAA
JAA

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top