Jump to content

Manafort Trial

Grandioso

By Grandioso
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

retread
retread
Hugo Stiglitz
Hugo Stiglitz
Chooky
Chooky

If Mueller completes this investigation leaving no doubt of criminal activity from this administration while at the same time paying for %80 of it with seized cash from Russian money laundering scheme

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14918

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25949

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14918

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31457

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31457

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31457

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30232

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5949

Posted
Posted
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.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45910

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
woohorn

woohorn 1131

Posted
Posted



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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31457

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105113

Posted
Posted
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31457

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31457

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted
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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
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.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18856

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J.R.

J.R. 150

Posted
Posted
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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17534

Posted
Posted
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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2274

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoTex

CoTex 1160

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by CoTex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31457

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoTex

CoTex 1160

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by CoTex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...