Manafort Trial

[kevwun 16447]

Yeah that totally explains why Manafort asked Gates to help him forge a loan document.  Go ask questions somewhere else, troll.

Edited August 14, 2018 by kevwun

[Doc Sam Beckett 5908]

Could have at least tried the Chewbacca defense. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Because who would you put on?  Not Manafort.  Not a counter-expert saying "no, all of these transactions are totally cool, you guys just don't get it."  Can't imagine you have anyone to counter the facts as being wrong/untrue (would have done that on cross anyway).  Even in a civil case, it's not uncommon to have very few witnesses once the plaintiff rests -- everyone who needs to testify has already testified.  Often, all that's left is your expert witness. 

Here, they're counting on a strategy of "even after all that, the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  It's tough, but I can see that strategy.

When your client is guilty as fuck its the only strategy. 

The state didn’t meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And its a high burden. It’s the only one they got. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

I should clarify that I believe they did meet that burden, rather easily in fact. My only concern is will politics get involved in the jury room? 

Edited August 15, 2018 by JimmyJames

[Buzzrock 15140]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I should clarify that I believe they did meet that burden, rather easily in fact. My only concern is will politics get involved in the jury room? 

Fair question. I'd love to have watched the jury selection process.

[Gil Bang 26249]

44 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Fair question. I'd love to have watched the jury selection process.

It was quite quick as I recall.  I'll defer to the lawyers, but fuck, I was a juror on a DUI trial and jury selection took as long.  When my BIL was murdered, that trial jury selection lasted a couple of days. 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

I'm going with GOLL.  There's a lot of stuff for them to go through, and I imagine the verdict form is pretty long and complicated too (just a WAG).  I would be shocked if they come back before Thursday.

this...plus there’s a lot of documentary evidence introduced and i suspect they’ll want to appear to get it right. but normal life calls...

Friday afternoon.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

I'm going with GOLL.  There's a lot of stuff for them to go through, and I imagine the verdict form is pretty long and complicated too (just a WAG).  I would be shocked if they come back before Thursday.

this...plus there’s a lot of documentary evidence introduced and i suspect they’ll want to appear to get it right. but normal life calls...

Friday afternoon.

[Buzzrock 15140]

19 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It was quite quick as I recall.  I'll defer to the lawyers, but fuck, I was a juror on a DUI trial and jury selection took as long.  When my BIL was murdered, that trial jury selection lasted a couple of days. 

First that sucks. I had a friend murdered a couple years ago now and it was terrible.

And the only jury selection I've ever been part of was one of Brandon Marshall's beating-up-his-girlfriend cases, and that took awhile.

[Tuco 5094]

There are what, 32 counts in the indictment? Each one requires its own decision. It might take a while.

[J.R. 150]

It will take them as long as each count on the verdict form times 10 minutes plus 1 hour for each 4 hours the first part adds up to. 

[TwiceHorn 32104]

53 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It was quite quick as I recall.  I'll defer to the lawyers, but fuck, I was a juror on a DUI trial and jury selection took as long.  When my BIL was murdered, that trial jury selection lasted a couple of days. 

Federal jury selection is highly truncated compared to state courts and probably doubly so in Ellis' court.  It's yet another reason the feds have a high conviction rate.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

gotta say that as a prosecutor who has the white collar crime docket, it’s pretty unusual for the D to not put on any witnesses. it tells me that they’re deathly afraid of cross of their witnesses...which i get knowing how much info the DOJ has...and decided to ride or die on the government’s case in chief.

it’s a helluva dice roll. we’ll see...

love this shit.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

Here's a glimpse at a jury instruction for bank fraud, http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/584

And filing false tax return.  http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/584

Yes, they're the 9th Circuit, the 4th doesn't have any, but I don't think even the 9th gets that wacky with criminal instructions.

There are 32 counts in the indictment, but about half were against Gates.  I didn't count precisely, but it's 16-17 counts against Manafort.

Edited August 15, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32104]

19 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

gotta say that as a prosecutor who has the white collar crime docket, it’s pretty unusual for the D to not put on any witnesses. it tells me that they’re deathly afraid of cross of their witnesses...which i get knowing how much info the DOJ has...and decided to ride or die on the government’s case in chief.

it’s a helluva dice roll. we’ll see...

love this shit.

Yes indeedy.

[Gatorubet 30783]

21 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

gotta say that as a prosecutor who has the white collar crime docket, it’s pretty unusual for the D to not put on any witnesses. it tells me that they’re deathly afraid of cross of their witnesses...which i get knowing how much info the DOJ has...and decided to ride or die on the government’s case in chief.

it’s a helluva dice roll. we’ll see...

love this shit.

No embarrassing cross exam means less blow-back when he's pardoned.

[Brisketexan 107009]

No embarrassing cross exam means less blow-back when he's pardoned.

This guy gets it.

Seriously, I think this is the play. He gets pardoned, gets to complain forever about how the Gov’t railroaded him, didn’t really meet their burden, etc.

[Mdhorn 6166]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This guy gets it.

Seriously, I think this is the play. He gets pardoned, gets to complain forever about how the Gov’t railroaded him, didn’t really meet their burden, etc.

He's still in debt to really bad guys that essentially own him and his family and that doesn't go away with a pardon.  

[jimmyjazz 47298]

Explain cross-exam, please.  Does prosecutor call their witnesses first?  Did the defense cross-exam (or whatever) those witnesses?  What's the real risk of the defense putting on a new witness that subsequently gets crossed by the prosecution?  Can the defense follow up?

[woohorn 1131]

it tells me that they’re deathly afraid of cross of their witnesses

Is THIS cross admissible in the NEXT trial? Maybe that is why they passed.

All you "pardon in the bag" guys-he has another trial soon. You think he get pardoned for this immediately, or does Drumpf wait and get 2 for 1?

[TwiceHorn 32104]

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Explain cross-exam, please.  Does prosecutor call their witnesses first?  Did the defense cross-exam (or whatever) those witnesses?  What's the real risk of the defense putting on a new witness that subsequently gets crossed by the prosecution?  Can the defense follow up?

When a party (either the prosecution/plaintiff or defense) puts on their "case in chief," their witnesses give their testimony by "direct examination," during which "leading questions" (those that suggest their answer) are forbidden, considered poor form, and unpersuasive.  At the conclusion of each witness' direct testimony, they are subject to cross-examination.  Cross is confined, typically, to topics raised in direct, and is done primarily by leading questions (not only suggesting the answer, but yes/no questions without explanation or hedging).  A talented cross-examiner can make a witness look like complete shit:  liar, dumbass, terrible memory, bad eyesight, the whole ball of wax.  The other party gets to "redirect" to rehabilitate the witness and give them a chance to explain, but often the damage is done.

 

In this particular case, every government witness was subject to cross-examination and whatever damage could be inflicted by that vehicle.  If the defense had put on witnesses, they would be subject to the same cross-examination.  In federal court, moreso than state courts, the cross-examiner may not raise issues not raised in the direct examination.

Edited August 15, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 107009]

Explain cross-exam, please.  Does prosecutor call their witnesses first?  Did the defense cross-exam (or whatever) those witnesses?  What's the real risk of the defense putting on a new witness that subsequently gets crossed by the prosecution?  Can the defense follow up?

Yes to all of these.

Prosecution calls a witness. Defense gets to fully cross. Often, if the prosecution calls all the fact witnesses, defense will do all of their examination as cross during the prosecution’s case.

Then, defense puts on its witnesses on direct...and prosecution gets a chance to fully cross.

And after cross, whoever put the witness on can do limited re-direct examination.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

24 minutes ago, woohorn said:

 

 

Is THIS cross admissible in the NEXT trial? Maybe that is why they passed.

All you "pardon in the bag" guys-he has another trial soon. You think he get pardoned for this immediately, or does Drumpf wait and get 2 for 1?

Probably not "per se" meaning transcripts could be shown to the jury, which would be counterproductive, anyway.  But, statements made by witnesses, either in direct or cross examination, could be introduced as "prior inconsistent statements" in a subsequent hearing or trial if the witness contradicts himself.  But the way those are used tends to kind of blunt their impact.  Everyone thinks they're gonna get this "were you lying then or are you lying now" great pivotal moment, and it winds up getting lost in the whole deal.  I think every judge I have ever heard speak about trial advocacy has said prior inconsistent statements are among the most overused and underwhelming evidence before a jury.

Regardless, I'm reasonably sure the testimony of any witnesses in this case would be largely confined to the tax and bank fraud issues, and pretty useless in the other trial.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

Further, I agree with the "deathly afraid" part, but not because it's going to expose Manafort as a cuck Russian stooge money launderer.  More likely, they could have witnesses testify to some partially true narrative that might appear exculpatory for Manafort, but on cross would wither, the complete truth would be revealed, and the case made that much worse for Paulie.

[zork 629]

so the jury makes a decision on each of the X amount of counts for both Gates and Manafort?  So 30 or so decisions will be read at the time the jury comes back out?

[Loco 3754]

If they come back quickly...

Very conflicted, popcorn now or wait for sentencing?

[yaqdum 182]

ouch.

little comment to while away a moment or two.  moreso isn't a word.  it's two words:  more and so:  more so.

saying moreso exposes your sphincters to those who know.

[Poolflood 845]

17 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Explain cross-exam, please.  Does prosecutor call their witnesses first?  Did the defense cross-exam (or whatever) those witnesses?  What's the real risk of the defense putting on a new witness that subsequently gets crossed by the prosecution?  Can the defense follow up?

Somebody never watched "My Cousin Vinnie".

[jimmyjazz 47298]

27 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Somebody never watched "My Cousin Vinnie".

Yeah I did . . . 26 years ago.  Should have called Joe Pesci.  Feed a man a fish . . .

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[atomheartbevo 90670]

33 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

How long until Trump bashes the Jets on twitter.

[jimmyjazz 47298]

Quote

NO COLLUSION!  The tired and failing New York Jets are the ones who colluded!!!  SAD!!!

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3874]

No butt fumble. No butt fumble.  You’re the butt fumble. 

[TwiceHorn 32104]

I know the did closings today.  Has the jury been charged?

[David Dennison 19569]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I know the did closings today.  Has the jury been charged?

Yes.

Deliberations start tomorrow.

 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

33 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes.

Deliberations start tomorrow.

 

Outside of there being an undercover Trumper on the jury who deems all of the evidence as "fake news", this should be a pretty quick deliberation, right? 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

Outside of there being an undercover Trumper on the jury who deems all of the evidence as "fake news", this should be a pretty quick deliberation, right? 

no guarantees at all in jury trials. they’ll oftentimes come up with shit you never thought of and wasn’t introduced into evidence.

the craziest, most unpredictable shit happens in jury rooms.

[David Dennison 19569]

35 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Outside of there being an undercover Trumper on the jury who deems all of the evidence as "fake news", this should be a pretty quick deliberation, right? 

Well, I guess they could get hung on stuff and maybe even acquit on some charges.

He's not going to get acquitted on all counts.

Paul Manafort is proper fucked.

 

[J.R. 150]

48 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

 

no guarantees at all in jury trials. they’ll oftentimes come up with shit you never thought of and wasn’t introduced into evidence.

the craziest, most unpredictable shit happens in jury rooms.

 

Yes you can rest assured the most the majority of the jury knows right now is that there is a sense someone did something wrong here and there a bunch of documents (some faked) and slime balls in the courtroom 

[Dahobbs 18391]

1 hour ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

 

no guarantees at all in jury trials. they’ll oftentimes come up with shit you never thought of and wasn’t introduced into evidence.

the craziest, most unpredictable shit happens in jury rooms.

 

Yup. Every mock trial and post trial questioning of juries leaves me stunned. They latch on to strangest stuff.  

[LongestHorn 772]

[deech 2402]

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yup. Every mock trial and post trial questioning of juries leaves me stunned. They latch on to strangest stuff.  

Our jury wouldn't even talk with us and provide us an explanation.  We clearly pissed them off or they were so tired of our shit they didn't want to talk to us.  Juries are awesome.

[Anastasis 23717]

Symbol:	MANA.CONVICT.2018
Start Date:	10/30/2017
End Date:	12/31/2018 11:59 PM (ET)
Shares Traded:	67,350
Today's Volume:	4,228
Total Shares:	23,465
Today's Change:	+11¢

[Anastasis 23717]

Trading at $.94

[CoTex 1185]

23 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Explain cross-exam, please.  Does prosecutor call their witnesses first?  Did the defense cross-exam (or whatever) those witnesses?  What's the real risk of the defense putting on a new witness that subsequently gets crossed by the prosecution?  Can the defense follow up?

Something like this:

 

“mr. defense witness, I want you to look at exhibit 33 here and pay attention to line 21.  See those words there, is that a true statement?”

“uh, well...”

nothing more fun than when your witness gets up and admits part of the other side’s case.

 

if you’ve ever worked on a drug case with a video recorded controlled buy, you’ll feel my pain. Prosecution plays a video of your guy doing something bad.  Defense puts up a witness.  Prosecution plays the video and asks “do you recognize —— in this video?  What is he doing here with the baggy and the money?”

Edited August 16, 2018 by CoTex

[TwiceHorn 32104]

25 minutes ago, CoTex said:

Something like this:

 

“mr. defense witness, I want you to look at exhibit 33 here and pay attention to line 21.  See those words there, is that a true statement?”

“uh, well...”

nothing more fun than when your witness gets up and admits part of the other side’s case.

 

if you’ve ever worked on a drug case with a video recorded controlled buy, you’ll feel my pain. Prosecution plays a video of your guy doing something bad.  Defense puts up a witness.  Prosecution plays the video and asks “do you recognize —— in this video?  What is he doing here with the baggy and the money?”

This is where the federal limitation of cross to matters raised in direct comes in super-handy.

[CoTex 1185]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is where the federal limitation of cross to matters raised in direct comes in super-handy.

I need to try more federal criminal cases.  Seems like most of mine are hemmed in very well and my defense is something like “take the plea offer and we’ll put on a sentencing case.”

Edited August 16, 2018 by CoTex

[triplehorn 2664]

The gall to think someone could start asking questions about lawful conduct.  Paulie hasn't even whiffed the plate with the country stack yet.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

45 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

The gall to think someone could start asking questions about lawful conduct.  Paulie hasn't even whiffed the plate with the country stack yet.

/Manafort

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

8 hours ago, triplehorn said:

The gall to think someone could start asking questions about lawful conduct.  Paulie hasn't even whiffed the plate with the country stack yet.