Lots of speculation here on the jury's consensus on 17 of the 18 charges. Some say the note indicates there's no consensus at all, on any charge. Most conclude otherwise, and there's a disagreement as to what that consensus is -- guilty or not guilty.
We don't know, of course, but I'll add my vote to the "guilty" side on those 17 counts. Gates wasn't a credible witness, and the other key witnesses had also been granted immunity. But even if the jury disbelieves all witnesses, the prosecution is home free on at least the "foreign bank account" charge, simply by introducing a tax return on which Manafort answered "No" to the question of whether he had a foreign bank account, plus documentary evidence that he did. (I'm familiar with the arguments that his "financial interest" in the Cyprus accounts wasn't technically reportable, but I find those arguments entirely unpersuasive).
In other words, I agree entirely with this commenter:
"The documented evidence ... was pretty damning in my opinion."
3
Incredible. So all you have to do is accuse an action as being biased and that makes it so.
I thought the Internet would give us infinite wisdom. All it has done is turned 40 percent of the country into know-it-all jerks.
2
Oh my, we just may have to be patient and wait. If it's hard for kids, just imagine the torture that will be for us.
Guess trump is having a stroke right now between 8 guilties and Cohen pleading guilty.
1
Hard to believe that the jury didn't see those documents as a slam dunk for 18 guilty verdicts. You hardly ever get better evidence than what was offered by the prosecution. I still think that THIS jury should have been sequestered, the case is that important, to avoid any exposure to outside forces.
what was that now-famous comment he said about - "time to drain the swamp"? Well, Bob Mueller is doing just that....
2
There has to be one pro-Trump juror and when Trump said what a great guy Manafort was, that decided his (and I do mean HIS) vote. I think Trump's comment should be a basis for a mistrial if Manafort isn't making licence plates in the near future. I forgot-Manafort will be pardoned and the folks at FOX will be 100% behind the miscarriage of justice. Facism, here we come.
UPDATE: just reported from in front of the Court House....the jury has reached a verdict on EIGHT counts, they are deadlocked on ten counts and the Judge told them to keep at it.
2
See latest story. Where are all the legal prognosticators. Guilty on 8 of 10 counts. Not ONE sticking one way or the other. Reading comprehension is a lost art, although some of the commenters recognized the ambiguity of the question
1
I pray he’s found guilty of his crimes.
3
one juror sees his ( for sure a white trumpster dude who would love to wear a $15,000 ostrich leather jacket) is holding it all up... HE'S GONNA WRITE A BOOK.....
1
All the Democrats celebrating--wait until after the mid-terms and the trials for Clinton, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. start. Doubt you will be so happy.
@Jonathan
Please articulate with what crime(s) Clinton, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. can be charged.
4
Lock them up. Manafort. Cohen. Don Junior. Jared.
4
Amazingly, this jury didn't get the reflex reaction message despite CNN & MSLSD going 24/7 with the intended verdict.
Just as with trials in the more progessive-socialist country, the old Soviet Union, Those Who Just Know Better have made it clear to the jury that only a ''guilty'' verdict will suffice; otherwise, there will be consequences, if only on their societal goodness score as adopted by the Communist Chinese gov't and Facebook.
3
Forget the witch hunt, it's time to hunt for warlocks.
This will end up as a hung jury.
That Manafort ever worked for Yanukovych! Speaks volumes aside from any convictions. That he was Trumps campaign chairman is for another day, but also speaks volumes and about the GOP enabling any part of this. If he is convicted we are in even deeper trouble in the US. Seems the far right know no bounds as long as it helps their bottom line, irregardless of creating a Banana Republic at home or in Europe.
6
See latest story. Reading comprehension is a lost art; although some commentators here noted the ambiguity of the jury's question. So quick to judge and jump to self-congratulatory conclusions. Take a deep breath and let the news cycle play out; the vent your spleen with facts, not opinions and guesses.
We should wait for the jury's verdict, which will come soon enough. But what would be the implication of guilty verdicts on one or all of the charges? I don't see any of Manafort's alleged crimes leading directly to Trump.
1
Prairie Populist--I'm sure you don't.
According to a CNN legal correspondent, if there is one count the jury cannot reach a consensus on, the court can accept the jury's decision on all the counts they can agree on and retry the charge they were unable to agree on.
7
I hope that the musings of commenters is accurate, that there is at least some mix of guilty verdicts in the outcome. Failing that, I can't help but believe that an acquittal would evidence that even the criminal justice system has been corrupted by political bias to the point where the US really has become a banana republic. In an unbelievable twist, this would be the first instance (that I can think of) where the subversion of the rule of law is not the result of a rogue executive branch that has co-opted the justice system, but rather the citizenry's own desire to put party affiliation above the rule of law. I would have always said that such an outcome was unthinkable in the US but, in this day and age, that term has almost no meaning.
If I were a trial attorney I would certainly be using the President's words to subvert any prosecution in any way related to the FBI, the IRS or any federal law enforcement agency. A new type of jury nullification. I'll actually be surprised if we don't hear of such a tactic being used - successfully - in a trial not involving a political malfeasant in the near future.
8
nictsiz--I find it hard to believe that none of the jurors heard, or read, ANY of donald tRump's disgusting remarks about this trial.
1
Somehow I doubt that this jury is asking the judge about the nuanced legal implications regarding a single charge if they’re not already overwhelmingly leaning towards ‘guilty’ verdicts.
2
The prosecutors offered immunity to witnesses in exchange for testimony they liked that helped them. All of that witness testimony should be discounted in that basis alone. Without those witnesses, what evidence is left?
@Joe Jackson Mountains of paper EVIDENCE. Don't you read these articles before you comment on them?
1
@Joe Jackson What evidence? thousands of documents
1
Joe Jackson--Uh...ALL of the immense and damning paper documentation, admittedly complicated enough for some people to not be able to understand. They try to pick jurors who are somewhat sophisticated in these matters.
1
Someone in the jury has a reasonable doubt in their mind on one of the counts. They also watched the Henry Fonda movie before the trial. In addition they have a lot of time on their hands (probably retired).
As a veteran of many juries I can only say that if I ever had to go to trial the only way it would ever be a jury trial is if I was guilty as sin. If I was innocent my trial would be by a Judge (if they weren't elected that is).
7
“If we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the jury verdict sheet for that count, and what does that mean for the final verdict?”
I read that to mean they literally can't agree on anything. 'We can't agree on a single count, not one.'
It's all moot anyway, right. President Trump will pardon Mr. Manafort.
2
@Mark
If trump pardons Manafort, there will be a huge political price that he will pay. Trump would be pardoning criminal activity in exchange for that criminal not testifying against him. Most people don't think anyone is above the law, including trump and Manafort, and a pardon in this way would turn the tides against trump.
5
@Mark Can you read, Mark? "fill out the jury verdict sheet for THAT count" means one count - not "can't agree on a single (exasperated) count."
1
@Mark
The "that" in the later half of that sentence indicates there's only one count for which they can't come to consensus:
"how should we fill out the jury verdict sheet for that count"
If they couldn't come to consensus on any counts, then "those" would have been the appropriate pronoun.
1
My best guess: They are deadlocked on the Foreign Bank Account Reporting charge. One must control over 50% of a bank account, or have signature authority. If someone controls exactly 50%, the law is ambiguous. 49.9% interest in the entity which has a bank account: no reporting required. 50.1% reporting required. 50.0% hmmmmmm I think Manafort gets off on this one, to the extent his accounts were 50.0%- some were, some were not.
Rest of the 17 counts, they find him guilty. With Cohen pleading guility, Manafort may go to jail for a very long time.
Sentencing guidelines require sentences based on the dollar value of crime- this is how the Madoffs of the world, get 150 year jail terms.
7
After President Trump is Re-Elected in the year 2020 maybe the media can plant a hot mic like they did in 2012 during the Obama Campaign. This way we will know exactly what he can do for Vlad.
2
@Pete the Greek HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH. How much of a simpleton can any one person be? Well we have our answer. What happens between the impeachment and 2020? Is that timeline lost on you somehow?
'It did not touch on Russia’s efforts to influence the election or on whether Mr. Trump had sought to obstruct the investigation.'
This one quote says it all about this witch hunt. You have an appointed individual, with unlimited funds, and no time limit going where he wants and doing whatever he wants. We've become a sick country.
3
@HozeKing I take you're taking about Kenn Star?
1
The mandate given to the Special Counsel said that he must investigate and prosecute "ANY crimes, either directly or indirectly related to interference in our election by Russia." Exactly, what do you not understand about this mandate?? Manafort is a broke criminal, whom in spite of being broke, agreed to work for Trump as his campaign Manager for free. While serving as Campaign Mgr, Manafort was in communication with Russian oligarchs, the same that funded cyberwarfare hacking operations that gained access to our precinct voting rolls and precinct electronic equipment, to offer them "briefings" about the Trump Campaign. Manafort also set up bogus LLCs on the day he resigned to launder payments to him made by Russia oligarchs. And you see no correlation? Using your logic and in violation of the mandate, only if Mueller finds Trump on tape accepting a bag of laundered money is there a crime, but if Trump knowingly dispatches his son or another of his goons to accept the same bag Trump benefits from, Meuller should look away. Ridiculous. We prosecute criminals in this country and Manafort and Trump are criminals. Knowing of a crime taking place and not reporting it, as Trump, does makes him a criminal.
1
@HozeKing
So his tax evasion and financial fraud should be overlooked go unpunished?
Why?
1
Ellis has been a poor example of a judge.
And certainly the jury should have been sequestered in a case such as this.
22
@srwdm
Have you ever been sequestered? Not fun, and probably would have driven many people away from serving on the jury.
Ellis is an excellent judge. But if you think he is poor, imagine what people might say of Peter Strzok and his ability to conduct a fair investigation.
2
srwdm--A real stinker. Very inappropriate behavior!
1
Tony--Well, I'd say that we can "guess" what you would say.
JJackson: You say that Manafort was targeted because of his ties to Trump and that the investigation is politically motivated.
It’s hard to keep the scandals straight, but I believe Manafort’s political dealings in Ukraine had already come to the attention of the FBI before he took a position in the Trump campaign. The scrutiny may have intensified, as it should have, once he became Trump’s campaign manager. Anyone seeking or holding a high-ranking position in the United States government, including the president, should come under intense scrutiny, and the American people should demand that.
You also say that you hope Trump pardons Manafort if he’s convicted because he committed “nonviolent tax offenses.” You do realize that American prisons are filled with non-violent, low-level drug offenders, don’t you? You seem to suggest by your comment that white-collar criminals should not be punished. I disagree. White-collar criminals need to serve serious jail time or they have no incentive to obey the laws.
26
I'm not a Manafort fan … but this is hilarious.
8
@Richard Luettgen, Richard, even for you this is a sick comment. There is nothing funny about this.
Remember that this is the judge that apologized for his outburst against the prosecution. Most trial lawyers say that his words are likely to influence the jurors and that the apology is unlikely to erase the damage.
With a judge being innapropiately harsh and a president calling it a which hunt I am not sure justice will prevail. I hope the jurors are capable of just looking at the evidence.
20
Being a juror on a complicated case like this is not easy, I speak with experience as I was a juror on a major Federal case in the mid-80's that lasted for 13 months (yes, 13 months!) not including the almost 3 weeks we were sequestered. I totally agree with someone who commented that in this case the jurors should have been sequestered. Too much fake/electronic news out there including our fake not-my-president.
31
Either way Manafort wins. CNN, NYT, WaPo and AP's recent attempt to get the identities of jurors is one point that can be used to make the case on an appeal that he jury was tampered with. Now it seems Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, is going to face similar charges as Manafort and will probably be made to sing or compose. If none of these men supported Donald Trump all of this wouldn't be happening to them.
6
@AZRandFan They probably wouldn't have come to the attention of the feds if they hadn't been associated with Trump, but that has no bearing on their guilt. Hit men may get away with killing lots of people; but if they are seen hanging around someone suspected of hiring hit men to kill their enemies, their odds of getting caught increase. Lay down with dogs, you might be found to have fleas.
7
@AZRandFan None of this would have been happening if anyone other than Donald Trump would have been president, because no one else on in the US but Trump would have selected these grifters for their presidential campaign.
1
@AZRandFan Regardless of their Trump connection, see how rampant corruption is within the ranks of the rich. These are precisely the people who should be behind bars. They do not want to pay taxes, and they strut around in their luxurious lifestyles rubbing elbows with the powerful. This kind of corruption costs our society plenty and it should be sought out and punished. White collar crime is alive and well. Are there any honest people out there?
1
"If we cannot come to a consensus on a single count..."
Two very different ways to interpret that sentence:
Either there is one count they are not certain about or they can't reach a consensus on any of the counts (not a single count).
13
Except that the next sentence references what do we do with "that count". That makes it clear that they have only one that is not decided. I suspect it will be the most technical charge, about whether he had control of a foreign bank account. I will happily accept 17 guilty and one not.
4
@Citizen
The foreman's question to the judge, of I read it correctly, was what if we can't agree on a single count. How do we fill out the verdict form for that "one"count and how does that affect the overall verdict.
1
@Citizen
The "that" in the latter half of that sentence indicates there's only one count for which they can't come to consensus:
"If we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the jury verdict sheet for that count".
If they couldn't come to consensus on any counts, then "those" would have been the appropriate pronoun.
1
My sense is that huge, drawn-out trials bore juries and make them less inclined to convict. Sad but I always remind myself of the OJ case.
Manafort's trial went at a nice, brisk pace; given the mountains of evidence and general sleaziness of Manafort it's hard not to assume they're 17- guilty 1- undecided.
10
Michael Cohen's plea shows us that even in Trump's America, crime is still against the law. Now please tell me that if the jury cannot agree on Mr. Manafort's guilt in one of the 18 counts, they are still free to convict him of the other 17 crimes.
12
This was the most hurried jury selection in Rocket Docket history. There were certain to be plants in it who would hold that persecuting this particular grifter was inexcusably politically motivated.
10
Let's hope there are unanimous votes for conviction, if for no other reason (aside from Manafort's guilt) to give Trump as little leverage as possible for considering a pardon.
9
One thing I haven't heard from anyone yet. Could it be that by Trump issuing pardons for people who are so obviously intermingled with his "affairs," could it be that he's being legally setup to reveal his guilt by the very act of issuing the pardons? Please tell me that it's not legal for him to issue pardons when it's for corrupt purposes.
16
@Wally Wolf
But no one is setting him up for something corrupt . That's one thing he can do very well on his own thank you.
@Wally Wolf
I would think that Mueller may be able to use a Manafort pardon to bolster his case for obstruction of justice against trump. A pardon would be an obvious quid pro quo that trump would use in exchange for Manafort not telling the special counsel what he knows. Sure sounds criminal to me.
Clearly, the jury has consensus on 17 of the 18 charges. If that doesn't mean a guilty verdict on at least some of those charges, I'll eat my hat. Time to celebrate - Mueller has taken down Manafort, and now dares Trump to pardon him. Pardoning Manafort is just more evidence of corruption!
30
@Debra
A ''not guilty'' verdict on 17 counts and one nagging possibility on the 18th is CLEARLY within the bounds of the jury's message.
@Debra President Trump can pardon anyone he wants--and will pardon Manafort. Nothing the Democrats can do about it.
A judge who reprimands the prosecution, openly, in front of the jurors, would seem to violate his judicial behavioral code. I had a bad feeling about this trial from the outset, after hearing from this "judge". That no defense was presented did not bode well. We'll see, but......
12
@Slann Suspicions confirmed. Guilty on 8 counts, and a "mistrial" on the remaining 10 counts, details to follow, to be sure, but too little, too late.
This judge has to be made to account for his actions.
1
Two of Trump’s “best people “ are in court this afternoon, and both are likely to be proven guilty by the end of the day.
This speaks volumes about the person who hired them, who incidentally is on his way to yet another rally where he’s going to peddle his lies and vengeful venom against those he considers his enemies.
Does this guy ever work honestly at the job he was elected for?
39
This should've been a slam dunk on all counts but Judge Ellis put up an excellent defense. A lot of criminal defendants would pay a lot of money for this kind of defense.
36
It's tax evasion folks. Boring old tax evasion. Trump won't be leaving office because of this, so let's manage expectations. On the bright side, this does open the door a bit more for John Kasich.
10
Trying to follow this trial fairly closely, it has concerned me that the Judge, T. S. Ellis, III, has conducted himself in a manner that could not accurately be described as completely impartial, and with favor being shown to the defense.
It's one thing to keep both sides within the confines of the law, but when he injects his own personal opinions, peeves and extraneous commentary defying customary procedure, is that not unduly influencing the jury?
46
there has to be at least one trump supporter on that jury. he's going to get off on all charges.
4
@Lenny, normally a jury selection for a case like this would be in voir dire for weeks.
4
@Lenny
yep. he's a white dude, trumpster, who will write a $$BOOK$$ and have his 15 minutes of fame....
@Lenny The jury already indicated unanimity on all but one count. No way they acquit on 17. It'll be guilty on either 17 or 18. Take that to the bank.
The entire case is undermined by the corrupted FISA warrant of Muellers investigation. It's called "fruit of the poisoned tree". Any conviction is virtually impossible and Mueller may face charges and/or sanctions of his own .
5
Dear Mr. Einstoss,
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is a phrase in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but its application is decided by the judge, not the jury. The doctrine does not apply here; if it did, then the judge, who certainly has not been easy on the prosecution, would not have sent the case to the jury in the first instance. Fox News is lying to you.
Thank you for reading.
24
@Alan Einstoss. This just proves you and others only read Fox Noise headlines and poorly spelled Trump tweets. The FISA warrant is not only reviewed by judges but numerous justice department officials. And it is not predicated on one piece of evidence. Multiple reviews have shown the warrant to be justified based on an array of evidence. But you and other Trump delusional supporters refuse to accept this. Here's is but one comment referring to the FISA warrant against Carter Page:
"National security experts who have reviewed the document say that even the parts that aren't blacked out contain more than enough information to provide a judge reason to rule that the FBI had probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of Russia."
And the investigation was not begun by Mueller. British agents having heard Carter's name come up in their investigation of Russian agents we're so concerned that they brought their concerns to the FBI. And it's appalling that this conservative republican career law enforcement officer, experienced investigator, former FBI head, decorated war hero, Purple Heart recipient, is being so vilified by the willful ignorant.
Have we ever seen so many people that a president has surrounded himself with quitting, being indicted, pleading guilty, or having so many contacts with a hostile foreign power?
The rotting of a fish starts at the head. What we have here with this administration is a rotten fish.
31
@Alan Einstoss There is no evidence of a corrupted FISA warrant, despite the repetition of such false claims in right-wing propaganda.
7
This jury was not sequestered by the idiosyncratic Judge Ellis III, leaving them open to deliberate tampering i.e. a character reference from a sitting President. Who knows what else? The pattern of practice of Trump's known associates has been to bend and break laws without loyalty to country nor morality in pursuit of personal gain. All the President's proxies now assert he is above the law, as evidence of Russia's leverage over him deepens daily. He wields the power of pardons to reward supporters and impede investigations, and insults, sues and now uses security clearance revocation to punish critics. Since Congress will not act, the courts must not be careless in application of the law in pursuit of justice. Americans are depending on the separation of powers working as intended by the Founders.
57
It’s very simple, after the dust will settles, Mr. Trump will pardon him ...
8
I did some research on the IRS website. It is complicated.
For criminal acts associated with IRS regulations, the jury must be unanimous, but the standard for guilt varies with the proposed crime, the standards are "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" and "Preponderance of Evidence."
Also, regarding unanimous vote for guilty I found that some states alllow for civil juries to determine verdict using some form of a majority. For a California civil case where I was a juror the standard was 9 of the 12.
But all Federal Courts require Jury Verdicts to be unanimous.
9
@Fred Fletcher I am an attorney and a former prosecutor. All federal criminal charges must be unanimous and the standard for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
4
I came in from a walk just now.
My wife (this is Norm speaking)--my wife was riveted to CNN.
What'll the verdict be?
And it's a dreadful thing to say--but I know what we both HOPE the verdict'll be.
We're not talkin' ACQUITTAL here.
Which is a dreadful thing. It reminds me of another trial. Held in Parliament--oh when? Around 1641 or 1642. Of King Charles I's hated minister, the Earl of Strafford.
Hated? Oh yes! By virtually EVERYONE. Certainly by his sometime colleagues in Parliament--whom he deserted to serve King Charles.
He was brought in guilty--by an Act of Attainder. That is--he was declared guilty "because we SAY so."
Acts of Attainder are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
No--but what I was thinking of was: boys and men riding posthaste through towns and villages after Strafford's execution.
"His head is off! His head is off!"
General jubilation.
Is that where we are with Mr. Manaforte?
Yes. I'm afraid so.
King Charles' head went off several years later. In 1649.
And I'm afraid we too--we have our sights on ANOTHER head we're longing to see roll.
A head half buried in all that flaming hair.
God help us!
4
I've been deeply concerned about this case. Based upon the record available (definitely not a trial transcript, but still a good accounting), Manafort's defense does not add up. The defense did a mediocre job on cross, yet chose not to call a single witness. The prosecution presented over a dozen witnesses and hundreds of exhibits. It would have been surprising to see a defendant like Manfort testify. However, at the very least, a paid expert should have testified and rebutted the prosecutions interpretation of the evidence. In closing arguments the defense contended that this was a politically motivated prosecution by the Special Counsel's Office. It may seems like a "frame" defense, but it isn't. The defense arguing that this was a witch hunt was no defense at all. Any benefit therefore exits elsewhere; namely in protecting Manafort's co-conspirators and superiors in massive enterprises meant to destabilize and destroy entire countries. Further, in protecting his superiors Manafort met the requirements for a post-conviction presidential pardon. Equally possible is jury tampering. What Manafort knows presents an enormous danger to not just to Trump and the Trump Family/Administration, but to Putin, and his entire network. If Putin, the master of KGB "Active Measures," was capable of derailing an entire American election, and has similarly destabilized elections throughout the world, no one should be surprised by his influencing the composition and decisions of this jury.
33
@Robert B: nullification by jury is a big part of the Republican plan for anarchy.
4
The evidence with respect to the charge dealing with the bank executive looking for a job with Trump wasn't that convincing.
8
You knew this would happen: Judge is slipped a thick envelope, he compromises the case by excoriating the prosecution, jury is told to disregard judge's comments but jurors remain befuddled, they ask for clarification, then can't come to a decision — despite a preponderance of evidence pointing to culpability of the defendant. And so rolls the Trump criminal syndicate.
11
@H. Clark The standard in a criminal trial is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," not "preponderance." It's a heavy burden, and if a jury is working hard, as this one might be, it may well be that on some counts this burden wasn't met.
Some lawyers belive that if a jury returns non guilty verdicts on some counts and guilty on others, an appellate court has a harder time reversing on any claim that the jury failed to consider the evidence.
All of which, of course, may be irrelevant in the pardon world of this president.
I certainly hope it is just one count that they are having issues with. In this current atmosphere our country is in, I am losing faith in our government system. I know jurors are suppose to weight the facts and decide guilty or innocent. But I cannot help think that it would take just one Trump supporter on that jury who will decide he/she will not bother with facts and just go with whatever his/her politics are. Considering that facts mean nothing to the common Trump supporter why would they mean anything in a court of law if it hurts any of Trumps minions even if they are distanced from him. Besides, if they find him guilty, he is only a breath away from being pardon by this president*.
16
"If we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the jury verdict sheet for that count, and what does that mean for the final verdict?
This reader will happily settle for seventeen counts of guilty as charged, if that helps.
65
This does not bode well for Mueller and his team of witch hunters..
7
Funny...that's 17 out of 18 counts "guilty." Not sure why this would bode ill for the prosecution.
6
On the contrary it is more likely the jury has found the defendant guilty on all counts but one -- probably a count charging bank fraud, which was the weakest part of the government's case.
4
Wait. Why not?
There are 18 counts. Manafort can be convicted or acquitted on one or all of them. I'd be surprised if the court did not provide the jury a form that requires a the jury's unanimous verdict on each count individually. It's not all or nothing. We won't know the jury is thinking until they return their verdict, but it sounds as though they are close.
25
I was a trial attorney for 25 years and never could truly understand what went through jurors minds. I vividly recall trying an OUI case as a prosecutor a few months into my new position fresh out of law School. We had 6 person juries for misdemeanors and minor felonies. I carefully perused the jury questionnaires, the judge conducted void dire, and the trial took place over a couple of days. The defendant testified that he had "only 2 beers"...he was convicted and sentenced. Afterwards, two jurors approached me and told me they had convicted the defendant "because he lied just like we did." I was confused. They then told me they had both been charged with OUI in the past and the defendant was a liar. When I asked how come they didn't disclose their previous OUIs on the juror form, they told me they were too embarrassed to put it down in writing. The "moral"...who knows what goes through a juror's mind.
31
@marty
I was looking forward to serving on a jury for the first time.
Charges had been brought against an inmate for allegedly starting a fire to his mattress in his cell in a SHU. It was the 2nd trial. Chief evidence was a burned mattress.
Corrections guards were the witnesses. This had happened on Christmas Day: the inmate because he had not gotten up when ordered to do so, was not allowed to have any time out of the cell that day. Later that day his mattress was set on fire.
The underlying questions which most jurors seemed to have - no matter how their vote came down - was: what's the point of this trial? The guy is already held in the most secure lockup possible.
Jurors were almost equally split at first. I felt some harbored feelings that the guards may have goaded the inmate into anger. We talked ad infinitum about the testimony. Some changed their minds, but not all.What was in everyone's mind? Our foreman was irritating because he repeatedly asked what we were deciding (nothing in that mind); another just wanted to get it over with, any way. Others? Maybe one had a relative in jail? Maybe one heard a racist edge in the testimony? ,Maybe there wasn't enough of a "story." Lawyers often work to provide a narrative to tie details together. Here: just a sort of "this happened".
This was a no "big deal" case: yet we ended up sequestered (days) and frustrated. And hung.
(Grand jury - more satisfying: you can ask questions, and don't have to decide guilt).
Thank you for this informative and un-speculative report.
3
As a Democrat and a Mets fan, I expect the worse, so no surprise. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and all that.
10
@Cliff Hahn
But maybe this will be 1969 all over again.
1
My worry all along for this case was that one or more of the jurors would be members of the Trump cult which has shown itself time and again to be erratic, untethered, irrational and gullible. How could such an individual ever serve as a proper juror? May we now however permit ourselves to begin to hope otherwise?
If a member of the Trump cult were to answer the jury selection questions honestly, they would simply not have been selected. They have lost their connection to the fact-based world. Trump has convinced them to go along with dishonesty, corruption, crime, conspiracy theories and even treason. Their world view is one of conspiracy theories, universal distrust, anger, racial resentment, anti-education, and white nationalism.
20
This is an omen for Manafort. It is possible that he is being acquitted in 17 other counts -- but very unlikely. This is also an omen for Trump. Manafort might decide to cooperate if faced with a heavy sentence. Any thought by Trump to pardon Manafort may be a horrible idea as well. Once pardoned, Trump would have zero leverage over Manafort. In addition, Manafort may not have the protection of 5th Amendment.
8
Every school should be teaching Civics, basic and advanced so everyone know what goes on where and why
12
In addition to all witnesses that testified, documents gathered and presented are the witness to Manafort's crime.
4
What if one of the jurors is completely brainwashed, and thinks all presented evidence is part of a "witch hunt", and they cannot agree on the facts? It would be very hard to reach a consensus in such a case I would presume.
9
The writing quality revealed in the jury's question to the judge does not inspire confidence in the rigor of their thinking.
20
I've been to Bordentown- it's not the intellectual capital of NJ.
@Bill Wolfe There is nothing amiss in the Jury's question: "“If we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the jury verdict sheet for that count, and what does that mean for the final verdict?” It is clear that they are talking about only ONE count because they say "that count". If they could not agree at all, they would just put in, I presume, a not guilty final verdict. I think you read too quickly.
4
@Bill Wolfe
It is Justice Ellis who does not inspire confidence by his remarks to the Prosecutors during the trial. He should be removed. He showed his bias in the very beginning of the trial.
No wonder the Jury has questions.
5
More evidence of the triumph's of Trump's war on reason, intellect, truth and fact.
Farewell, America. It was great knowing you.
7
Our system has failed . A sympathetic Trumper or GOP got to the juror and Manafort will get free and continue not paying taxes and hiding his money off shore. The GOP are bad news.
4
Why would you say that? The jury isn’t judging a reality TV contestant. There are constraints on the burden of proof needed to convict a person of a crime. Careful deliberation isn’t a failure. It is a positive sign that our system is working.
9
@D.j.j.k.
While I had thought about that possibility, the way the jury has framed its question, together with the amount of evidence of guilt, seems to indicate that that's not the case.
5
Should a pardon occur after this verdict is reached, it will set the stage for an overwhelming reaction by people around the world... Eventually, Trump will have to tip his hand and show his true colors...
I'd like to believe that the wheels of justice move slow, but do in fact, move...
20
@KnuckleMug
those who support Trump will be overjoyed with the pardon from the Thug-In-Chief and those who do not support Trump will continue to feel that they are in the middle of a slow moving coup. Unfortunately, I don't think pardons will move any needle with regard to outrage. Doesn't matter what people around the world think, it is what the citizens of this country will do en masse in response to such flagrant undermining of the justice system. I am not optimistic. Does anything matter anymore?
2
I suspect the jury's confusion stems from poor instructions from the Judge Ellis. This would be consistent with the clearly arrogant and inappropriate - and arguably incompetent and biased - manner in which he oversaw the trial.
29
Wow- you were there? Just kidding.
modified Allen charge (a federal criminal jury instruction) it would appear - sometimes works to drive consensus, sometimes not. if the jury still can't decide (after 1 more round - 2 at the most) the judge will accept a partial verdict (hung jury on the count in question). this jury is clearly working hard. that was evident from their initial questions to the request for a larger deliberation room. good for them, tuning out ALL of the back seat driving from POTUS on down.
20
Mr. Manafort is in jail for attempted witness-tampering. We don't know what other -tampering he might have gotten away with.
11
I can’t take this suspense!! I’m too old. Can we just have him guilty and get the pardon from the criminal calling himself president so we can get to the next stage in this mess.
59
@MP. It's certainly ruining my retirement. Instead of sitting with a good cold beer watching the ocean, I'm drawn back again and again to the drama that I thought I was leaving behind.
5
@MP
May you live in interesting times.
“I came here to see the penguins, but I cannot see a single one."
1
Suddenly the case against Manafort is falling apart. Justice will prevail.
3
@Girish Kotwal Justice will prevail. Guilty on almost all if not all counts. Don't worry Trump will pardon him
2
You should try to read more carefully.
4
@Girish Kotwal Change the channel.
3
In a country that voted for Donald Trump and acquitted O.J. Simpson, I’d be happy to see Manafort found guilty of something or anything.
Unpaid library fines and parking tickets would be fine with me.
17
@A. Stanton
I dont think Americans like to put rich men in jail although from what we can tell they commit crime at the same rate as poor men. Anatole France said The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Manafort is a crook. But that doesn’t mean it was even possible to get him dead to rights on all 18 counts. The jury may simply be doing their job properly. In fact, that’s what I think they are doing. They are parsing every one of these charges, and if they disagree on one, well, that’s a mistrial, but only on that one charge.
11
Regardless of jury’s decision, Manafort will likely not face any prison term. He will be pardoned.
2
@BWCA. Trump can only pardon Federal charges. We haven't even seen the potential State charges for tax and banking fraud (and who knows what else) from all the states involved...five, just off the top of my head: NY, CA, IL, FL, and VA. If you thought this case was complex...
5
Sounds like there are definitely some guilty counts.
22
Boy, I sure hope they are asking “How do we proceed if we can’t agree on one of the counts?” rather than “How do we proceed if we can’t agree on even one count?” Personally, I have been afraid that we would get an 11-1 hung jury, where eleven want to convict but a single Trumpist juror won’t agree to convict no matter what evidence is presented, because a conviction would reflect badly on the president. And, with the juror being a Trumpist, no explanation will be offered except that the evidence was “FAKE”, all caps, of course.
10
Read again- slowly this time. Take notes if necessary.
2
Not coincidentally, almost the exact same litany of charges in this case are being leveled at Cohen, as well as those which Donald Trump is presumably guilty of.
Birds of feathers..........
17
@Nuffalready
Not a single charge against Manafort has anything to do with Trump/Russia. Where do you get your news?
It’s idle to speculate. Soon enough we will know. Some of the readers already expect a rigged verdict, but whatever the outcome the case is a failure because its whole purpose was to get the birdie to sing or compose. Well, the little birdie didn’t peep.
6
Sure Ed.
2
Yea, what a stand up guy. Waiting for the Don to give him a pardon.
4
@Ed. Yet. Didn't peep YET. Next month is the DC trial. And the State tax and bank fraud charges haven't even been filed yet...by my count, there are at least five States involved...NY, FL, VA, CA, IL. And just wait till the government(s) and banks start taking back some of that ill-gotten money and property for restitution.
4
All this talk of draining the swamp, but I expect him to pardon it instead. Then he won't be in such a swamp. Swamp isn't swamp.
5
Is there an attorney in the audience? What does this mean? Not unusual? Usual? The only glimmer of hope I have right now is the judge saying he would "consider" a partial verdict. Good God, please let our justice system work. This guy is downright evil!
17
Trumps says it is a disgrace, not a disgrace for trying to avoid paying taxes (that just makes him smart in Trump's mind) or defraud banks (T probably admires him for that too), but for the government to hold him accountable -- that is the disgrace. Millions of Americans believe that Trump is the biggest disgrace. Sadly other millions love his meanness and complete lack of class. They like their own, I guess.
11
Think this means good game for Manafort. It’s really unlikely for a jury to acquit on all but one count.
9
If convicted, I have one thing to say to Mueller...
Finally, somebody's draining the swamp!
10
this is the kind of suspense our system is supposed to have.
too bad the judge had his thumb on the scale for the defense but what do you expect from one of reagan's deep state plants?
4
Not having really followed this trial and certainly not privy to what was on the charge sheet, but having been on a jury it was laid out in sequential order for us, with a "decide 'guilty' on charge 2, proceed to charge 3, otherwise decide if.....".
It was many years ago but it's what I recall. So, I'm wondering if they happen to stuck somewhere in the sheet and they don't know how to proceed.
I wouldn't assume 17 of 18 charges have been decided.
Anyone with some legal background willing to chime in on this as a possibility?
@Paul Sounds like they've decided 17 and are hung up and the 18th. Expect a verdict soon.
2
Are Manafort's Black gloves just too small for doing this dirty work and possibly Gates? The OJ Simpson trial went on for months. Manafort is due in DC on another case. Get this done!
The power of the federal government to prosecute is almost limitless. Senator Menéndez was lucky. I suspect Manafort won’t be... so lucky. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the open secret of foreign governments paying for access through lobbyists.
It’s stinky out there. Let those who take ugly money and not reveal themselves pay the price.
5
Okay, so this is my “verdict” from reading the NYT and other reliable news outlets. If Manafort is found innocent, Republicans on the jury lied that their political beliefs would not affect their verdict. Just like the oj simpson jury had no racial bias.
Oaths are meaningless nowadays, just ask trump.
15
It could be not guilty on all counts except one. Bummer.
1
@David J It could be that the sun rises in the west
Pretty bad lead: what is described in the first paragraph differs considerably from what the jury's note asked.
1
Hey, seventeen out of eighteen ain't bad....
3
17 out of 18 is not bad, Mr. Mueller.
6
@Grain of Sand For the sake of completeness, my conclusion is not sound. I should have said that although there is evidence that the jury made their (unanimous) decision in 17 or of 18 charges, we do not know how many of these decisions are guilty and how many are not guilty. In case I misled those who recommended my comment to others, my apologies for writing without proper thoroughness.
My guess, however, is that most of the 17 unanimous decisions will be guilty based on assumption that Mr. Mueller team would not bring forward charges which are not capable of yielding guilty verdict from the jury. On the other hand, just one Trump ‘blind’ follower on the jury and Trump attempts to temper with the jury with his continuous public statements would be capable of derailing quite a few decisions which without the juror’s presence would result in unanimous verdict on most counts.
1
I'm certain that Manafort's attorneys are jumping up and down in joy after hearing this. Manafort?.............well, he is wearing a "jumpsuit".
1
The Bighouse beckons.
3
"if jurors are having trouble reaching consensus on a single one of the 18 counts."
That is a very ambiguous statement. I would wish that it said more explicitly "...on one of the 18 counts." Instead, it reads like a hung jury on all 18 counts.
5
Why is this news? It’s like reporting that Manafort forgot his glasses in his cell. Just report the verdict.
1
I am writing out of ignorance here and I sincerely apologize for being stupid, but can't the jury convict (or not) Manafort on the remaining 17 counts? Must this verdict be unanimous? Clearly, I've never served on a jury nor ever watched Perry Mason in my much younger years.
3
@Marge Keller Yes, the jury can convict on some counts, acquit on some, and fail to reach a verdict on the rest.
3
@The King
Thanks for the intel. Much appreciated.
I can accept 17 Guilty verdicts and One Hung Jury count.
7
The fix is in.
2
I'm impressed by the work of this jury. They appear to be going through every count methodically and fully. Doesn't appear that they are deadlocked on all but this single charge. If so, it looks like Manafort will be going away for some time, subject to a pardon by Trump..
I must say that I had some worry earlier during deliberations. All it would take to blow up a jury is one Trumpist. Doesn't look like that happened.
2
Manafort is about to enter the Twilight Zone portion of his useless existence..."Consider if you will a man, in an ostrich skin jacket, being to told to strip naked, searched for contraband, issued prison blues, a sheet, a towel, a roll of TP, a spoon ( plastic) and being told to head for the top bunk. Adios to Manafoirt...he has entered the Twilight Zone. good night and good luck. Lights out at 9....
8
Big blow to Mueller if democrat friendly jury cannot reach a verdict.
@Julia Hi, Julia. Do you know who's on the jury? Do you know their political affiliations? Because if you don't, it sounds like you're just trying to preemptively discredit the verdict.
3
18 posts, 18 indictments
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we’ve found a witch.
“Genie let out of the bottle...”
1
The jury could just be asking what happens if they don't agree on a single charge because it sounds like the verdict sheet they were given is asking for an all-or-none guilty/not guilty entry. It doesn't necessarily indicate they have reach any number of conclusive verdicts on any of the charges.
Personally, I hope they've found him guilty on the majority of them at least. The documented evidence and testimony was pretty damning in my opinion.
8
I hate Trump and all the partisan divisions he has brought to this country.
29
I'm sure the jury wants to decide the verdict much more than we need to hear about their decision. When was the last time you served on a jury? The experience is unpleasant on multiple levels. I really don't enjoy handing down life changing decisions to strangers. Calling us peers is a stretch in all but the smallest communities. I respect the law and I will serve when called but that doesn't mean I have to like it. It's like getting assigned to a group project with eleven strangers. No one read the text book and you can't leave until the project is done. I'm sure the jurors just want to go home.
5
Can't agree on one of many counts? Or can't agree on even one count?
1
My guess on the one count is on the bank loan where Manafort offered the banker Sec. of the Army. The argument is there was a quid pro quo there, and that the banker knew what he was doing, therefore, Manafort cannot be held totally culpable for that loan. Just my guess.
4
This is what I was afraid of.
I've thought all along, from the moment they ordered a birthday cake for one of their number way back, and from the moment their body language while Gates testified was described as 'hostile' -- from those moments, and in addition from the judge's inappropriate anti-prosecution comments -- I've been concerned that this was a conservative / corporate / right-wing jury. Whatever the numbers, 1 person or 17 persons think Manafort is innocent, and given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, that's a sign of the jury's bias.
In fact, it's a sign of someone's determination to ignore the evidence.
2
@Robin Cunningham LOL! How does ordering a birthday cake show that the jury is "conservative/corporate/right-wing"? Liberals don't like birthday cake?
1
It appears as if the jurors have reached a verdict on 17 of the 18 counts against Paul Manafort. A final verdict seems imminent on those later today. Let's hope they find the evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" and return a " guilty" verdict. If that happens, will have the brazen disregard to issue a pardon?
1
@Paul Wortman
"The hungry judges soon the sentence sign,
And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine."
I think that was Alexander Pope. Sounds like him, but I haven't looked it up. :--)
My main concern is centered around the fact that anyone who is not informed enough to qualify for the jury is also not informed enough to comprehend the elements of the crime and logically determine whether those have been met by the prosecution's case. Nothing so far has assuaged that fear.
12
He'll get pardoned and there'll be understandable outrage on the left, but it will be cheered by those who only watch and listen to right-wing TV and radio because for them even the destruction of the republic is preferable to a Democratic Congress or president that gives health care to the poor and enacts reasonable gun control.
32
I believe Manafort's best chance of avoiding conviction would have been if there were one or two jurors that were supporters of the President, and had been influenced by what I feel was a clear attempt by the President to indirectly tamper with the Jury through his comments on Friday. If indeed it is the case that the jury is agreed on 17 of the charges, logic says that Manafort will be found guilty on those 17 charges. Based on the evidence presented, it feels implausible to me that 12 jurors would agree on a not guilty verdict, unless there had been some direct jury tampering, either via payoff or threat. Nothing would surprise me though. We appear to be living in a George Orwell Book.
31
@Gary
My bet is the one count they have yet to agree on relates to one count of bank fraud. Manafort received a bank loan on the basis that the property was his personal residence. As it turned out the property was a little bit of an Airbnb goldmine.
Maybe foolishly, I can trust Manafort will be convicted on a large number of the counts at hand. Should that be the case, the next step should be sentencing - thinking that Trump will not issue a pardon if the sentence is minimal. At sentencing, will Manafort offer a deal, or does he have advance knowledge he will be pardoned by Trump?
It is all conjecture, but I suspect a decade or more will lead to a pardon - Trump likely has good reason to at least try it. At that point, if a vote to impeach is not passed, our country will have crossed the the line heading downhill to its finish.
1
The prosecution laid out a detailed case of tax fraud and money laundering against Paul Manafort. Maybe the "reasonable doubt" question is at issue here. If 17 of the 18 counts favor the government, Manafort is all done.
2
If Manafort is convicted on 17 of 18 counts, that's fine. But the judge in this trial has behaved in sufficiently unusual ways that I will not feel that justice has been served until the actual verdicts are read: Guilty on 17 counts, hung on one count if that is, as I assume, a legitimate outcome.
2
I have no personal stake in the outcome, yet my heart skipped a few beats reading this news flash. So much of democracy and decency at stake based on the deliberations of these 12 citizen. C'mon Jurors, do the right thing! Roll Tide!!
2
Apparently, the full note from the jury read:
"Your honor, if we cannot come to to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill in the jury verdict form for that count?"
“That count” makes it clear they were referring to just one count, not multiple ones.
The question is whether there are other counts that they haven't examined yet, or are continuing to deliberate on. In which case, there could be other charges that they do not reach a verdict on.
Remember that it has to be 12-0 for guilty or 12-0 for not guilty. Anything in between, any split vote, means no verdict on that charge.
It also means that Manafort could be recharged on any of those counts that didn't produce unanimity.
2
Either they've decided he's not guilty on 17 counts and can't decide on the 18th, or that he's guilty on 17 counts and they can't decide on the 18th. I find it hard to believe they would conclude unanimously that he's not guilty on 17 counts but most jurors think he's guilty on the 18th. If it was a walk on all counts they wouldn't be asking this question.
Robert Mueller #maga
3
Evading income tax is a crime that every tax payer understands. The jury is unlikely to return a not guilty verdict on that count. We shall see.
7
It appears that from other newscasts, it is just one account they are not agreeing on so Ellis said go back and try to agree. Then if they can't agree, they can't do partial charges or don't do a charge on that issue and lawyers can redo the issues if they want. You can correct me but it sounds as though Manafort is being charged as guilty in 17 which is great. I'm excited about a coming verdict. I'm sure some jurors want to get back home to work. I hope the jurors know this.
3
I'm still upset with the way the judge conducted the trial. He set a bad tone for the entire trial, jury deliberations included. I wonder whether any of the jurors adopted any of the judge's snappy attitudes, spouting off comments improperly and incorrectly, when evidence was being discussed. I just hope they're getting along in there and will be able to make a decision soon.
18
Word has it that the Jury just can't decide how guilty Manafort should have felt when wearing either his Ostrich Suit or Cobra Jacket.
However , there is some difference of opinion by some on the Jury that rather than decide how he should have felt, instead that they decide that He should have Felt.
i.e he should have got rid of those Ostrich and Cobra fashion failures and replaced them with Suits made of Felt.
But he didn't .
Then they can all agree that he is guilty of should have felt guilty versus guilty of how he should have felt guilty.
It's an important distinction; How he should have felt Guilty is not a felony as opposed to He should have felt Guilty which carries a minimum of 5 years jail.
Hopefully the Jury will come to an understanding on this important issue.
2
I can totally see the logic of the jurors, that they can decide on some of it but they can't on other parts and that each count is separate, so why do they have to agree on, let alone come to a formed opinion, on all of them. Why not be able to say, well we agree on this and that but not on these and those? If one or members is unclear or at odds over whether someone is innocent or guilty of one or another count, why would the judge demand that they continue to "deliberate"? This is like telling them they can't leave until they ignore their honest uncertainty or difference of opinion and just decide to agree one way or the other. Why sending deadlocked jurors back to deliberate doesn't directly lead to overturning the verdict on appeal escapes me.
One must consider the possibility that 'the fix' was in even before the jury was impaneled.
The assumption being made, I'm sure, is that the verdict is "guilty" on 17 counts, with the 18th being held back by one, possibly more, jurors. What does Judge Ellis mean by "would" in respect to the 17 unanimously decided counts? Does "would" mean "will," or does it mean "might?", which leaves open the possibility a single undecided count negates 17 where full agreement is reached. Is Ellis using "would" as a teaser to keep us --and Trump-- holding our collective breath?
Granted, a partial verdict gives Trump permission to ratchet up his "rigged" battle cry. Only acquittal on all 18 counts would (will) please him.
Your honor, we can't decide whether he is guilty or whether he's incredibly guilty.
8
If he is not found guilty, I will assume that they are hardcore Trump supporters who tend to ignore facts, or that they've been compromised somehow.
2
I heard on CNN from a legal pundit that if the jury is decided on 17 of the 18 counts, odds are they voted guilty on the 17. If the jury verdicts were innocent on those 17, they would not be too hung up (no pun intended) on declaring Mr. Manafort innocent on the 18th charge also.
The dominant party cannot reign forever, and truth and justice will prevail at last. Robert E. Lee, yes that one.
18
@James L
nice thought that they cannot reign forever but so much damage to us, our children, our infrastructure, our character, our food, and our hopes for democracy (which is not understood by some republicans as a way of governing, not a 'party') has already happened....
How can we ever get back our unpolluted air, water, crops, after they have been republicanized? Not to mention our so-called 'supreme' court and the decisions it will have made by then.
It is like being in a nightmare from which we are unable to wake up. So much misery, so much sickness and meanwhile so much money unused, just sat on greedily in their bank accounts or investment accounts by the extremely greedy rich.
I would like to think that Trump somehow sometime will regret his devil-fueled campaign to get back at President Obama.
6
@Elizabeth Barry
I refuse to give up.
Michael Cohen, the Fixer, is pleading gulty today.
I hope to sweep todays double header.
My guess is that they will find him guilty of most of the charges but may not agree on the one charge they asked a question.
I will be glad to see the verdict.
5
Their is still an investigation ongoing in NY with regards to State charges.
1
@NMC. Probably VA as well. And after the testimony from vendors and banks...FL, IL, CA to name a few.
1
Well, the good news is the pending verdicts has pushed Cohen to flip. Today could be a good day for democracy.
2
Manafort can be convicted on all of the other counts. Then, "Lock 'em up" for the rest of his days!
56
And then he can be pardoned by Trump. Sweet justice!
1
Use of the President's unfettered pardon power to obstruct Department of Justice investigations, if it happens, will be pivotal in American history. And Americans have not seen cause for hope that this Congress will protect the people's interests. The pardon should be a good catalyst for change though in the 2020 election cycle. Trump is sure to say "no pardon" though in front of the 2018 election, however.
51
@Dan Cummins Unfortunately, Fat Donald can exercise his pardon power at any time. I agree that he won't pardon before the 2018 mid-terms, but he certainly will afterwards. I still wake up in the morning in total disbelief that Fat Donald is actually POTUS. We need to rid ourselves of his menace to save America.
1
@Dan Cummins What I don't understand is why people think Trump's horrendous abuse of the pardon power is going to hurt him with voters. I've seen no evidence people inclined to vote for him care about any evil he spreads upon the land.
6
One concern is that in order to find jurors who hadn't made a decision about Manafort before the trial even started (like most of us who follow the news extensively) they might have jurors who can't understand the complexities of this case.
The other is that the judge has trivialized the importance of the case and made some evidence unavailable to the jurors by pushing for speed.
125
@KJ So people who made their minds up before setting foot in court are too stupid to understand what they'll see and hear in court (having already made up their minds before seeing / hearing anything)?
That is some fancy logic.
2
@Talbot I think you need to reread KJ’s comment.
I am afraid that if the jury doesn't find Manafort guilty on all charges, there will be accusations that the jury was bought.
27
@Talbot
I have been worried about that throughout the trial. It only takes one, and we have seen how good the Russians are at undermining an open society.
2
@Talbot there can and will be accusations galore, no matter what happens, Where is this stupid 'the jury has been bought ' mindless repetition coming from? You can make anything up you want and spread it on the internet - I think the jury included Samantha the witch, but that in no way makes it true. I think YOU were bought. Disprove that charge!
@TalbotI think a guilty verdict will produce the same hue and cry.
1
As a retired lawyer from NY,who has tried cases,albeit civil not criminal, my expectation is the jury is very close to the end and will find a way to decide unanimously on the count they are struggling with. As for their verdict I have learned long ago not to speculate too much. Although it appears the government presented a very strong case and the defense presented no witnesses,one never knows how a jury will react. I will be surprised however if he isn't convicted on a substantial number of the charges.
As for how the President responds to any convictions.....his options are many and time is on his side. Manafort may have to spend some time in jail but seeing Trump's behavior since his election tells me that one way or another it's unlikely that Manafort serves out his full sentence,whatever it may be.
160
@RT It’s actually very easy to read this jury. Manafort will be acquitted on all counts.
It says they are unable to come to a consensus on all 18 counts
@RT
My fear is that Judge Ellis's remarks and attacks on the Prosecutors may have rendered this jury a bit prejudiced towards the Defense lawyers.
Judge Ellis is past his prime and should retire. His remarks were shameless and I definitely do not trust his answer to the jury regarding the one count question.
2
I’m concerned that someone got through to at least one member of the jury and bought them.
215
@Ellen You're misreading the jury question. It indicates that they're split on one, just one, count.
1
@Ellen I've been worried the whole time, but this actually means that didn't happen because they wouldn't be disagreeing on just one count. He's toast.
1
@Ellen There is nothing to indicate the number of jurors who disagree. But it does sound as if verdicts have been reached on all but one charge.
1
Having grown up with a conservative Uncle who was both a lawyer and Judge, and having been a juror on a federal case, I believe I can offer insight on what is going on it the jury room: A number of 'middle-of-the-road' citizens are getting hung up on the shadow of a doubt principal that would have been played-up by the high-priced defense lawyers. It's an old story, that we have seen time and time again; witness the OJ verdict. The legal system is yet another broken part of our Democracy. Otherwise, this gangster and crook would be headed for sentencing.
250
@Ed
Agreed. Having been on a jury deciding a violence offense, this was exactly the problem that several of the more wooly jurors had. And likely why they were picked. It's also why so many criminals get away with so much. That doubt is their reward, they thrive on it.
1
@Ed
It's the principle of the thing, especially if you're a principal; even more so if there's not a shadow of a doubt you've been shadowed . . .
@Ed I think it is a “reasonable doubt” standard, not a “shadow of doubt”. I have been in juries where jurors think this shadow standard is in play. But the standard is only to a reasonable level, and no beyond it or of a shadow nature.
I wonder if some of the IRS charged are to a 9 juror standard?
I hope and expect that the jury was thorough in its deliberations.
32
@macdray And I hope they were not influenced by the judge who was castigating the prosecutors (unfairly, in my opinion).
2
@macdray can't wait. Time to prosecute anyone connected to Trump and Trump number 1.
If this was Hillary's trial for using an unsecured server Donald Trump would be booking back to back to back rallies in order to gleefully lead his frenzied mob base in chants of "Lock Her Up".
Even if the verdict had not yet been reached! Oops.... my bad, he's already been there and done that.
154
@medianone well, she should be locked up. There is much evidence that she or her "team" did collude with the Russians. You favorite media just don't want to expose what has already been discovered. You've been duped.
@medianone
Hillary never faced a subpoena or a Grand Jury so in what Universe would she ever face a trial?
5
@MCH: Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that Hillary or her team colluded with the Russians? I don't expect pages of detailed footnotes. This is a blog, not an academic paper. But at least one or two things we could look up would be helpful.
Times will tell just who has fell when Paul goes down and Donnie is left to whine.
20
@greg you go your way and I go mine
1
great Dylan reference Greg
2
There are two possibilities:
1. The jury cannot agree on ANY count, in which case there is a hung jury and Manafort gets to pay his lawyers AGAIN for another trial.
2. The jury cannot agree on JUST ONE count, but have verdicts on the others.
I hope it is option 2. It would be nice to get this trial over.
If I had to guess, I would look to the one bank fraud count of 9 that the judge commented on, which application was REJECTED by the bank. Some juror may think that the rejection nullifies the fraud. That would be WRONG because the fraud is presenting papers that include deliberate lies, whether or not the loan is actually approved.
329
@Joe From Boston Had such been the case, the jury would’ve asked for legal clarification on that point.
@Joe From Boston Sounds like it's number two, a problem on one of the 18 counts.
1
@Joe From Boston
"[H]]ow should we fill out the jury verdict sheet for that count[?]" suggests to me they've agrred on the seventeen other counts.
2
Certainly a good sign-- assuming it's not the most serious charge, of course. But the implication that they've decided on the other 17 would indicate a guilty verdict on those counts; not guilty X 17 is completely implausible.
134
I don't disagree that guilty x 17 is most likely, but there are a few more options than you lay out. Like guilty x 12 and not guilty x 5 and hung x 1, etc, etc, etc.
@Sixofone
It seems less plausible that they voted "Guilty" on 17 and are hung up on one, than vice-versa. Hopefully, they saw through this show trial for what it was: a witch hunt.
1
@Sixofone
I didn't recommend your post, simply because I didn't want to jinx the outcome
I expect the charge they are divided on concerns his fashion sense, and whether that constitutes a crime.
444
@Jay Dwight
lol... but nah, I think that's a unanimous conviction...
Perhaps Manafort black gloves are too big and actually His business partners?
@Jay Dwight
No, he’s definitely guilty!
Well, I hope it is only one count, and that the other 17 have been decided. Of course, even if convicted the specter of a presidential pardon looms large, as we see our democracy and our ideals of American justice chipped away piece by piece.
111
@Blue Stater But why is judge Ellis not giving them the rules that on one count, they can have reasonable doubt? They can can't they?
2
I might be prejudiced, but all along I worried that the "rigged witch hunt" might be accompanied by rigged juries.
99
@uga muga - Yep, for sure. Everything has been carefully rigged by the deep state against our glorious leader, Hair Trumpenfuhrer...
The media, bots implanted in society as humans,the FBI, CIA, Justice Dept., ad nauseam.
It is the most carefully planned and enormously successful rigging since the invention of rigging by Señor El CordaJe, known as "El Brujo"...
2
@uga muga
If you've been following the trial closely, you also wouldn't be able to completely ignore the possibility of a rigged judge, either, based on his inappropriate and prejudicial behavior in the courtroom.
4
@uga muga
I'm worried that the judge unfairly prejudiced the jury by all his rants at/about the prosecutors and their case.
It's a pretty clear signal that he will be found guilty on at least most charges. The real questions are whether or not he will be pardoned and whether or not a pardon has already been discussed.
85
@JT
Manafort may have decided against a plea deal not because he expects a pardon, but because he believes that a white-collar federal cell is preferable to a visit from the Russians.
7
@JT a pardon by Trump is likely. He pardons all his crime mob bosses. What we need to do is to get Trump prosecuted hopefully in a liberal courtroom or state.
2
@JT
I'm willing to bet the pardon has already been written, and is waiting in the so-called "president's" desk.
After all the despicable chants of "Lock her up!" Manafort gets the benefit of due process. I'm sure it won't stop the Trump cabal from trashing the jurors, the judge, and even the stenographer for extra kicks.
Meanwhile, in DC, Trump is surely on the warpath against some American who want dignity and intelligence in the White House.
341
@Suzanne Moniz
Trump said that if I voted for Clinton, I'd be stuck with a criminal president under constant federal investigation from day one.
Turns out he was right.
I voted for Clinton and I've been stuck with a criminal president under constant federal investigation from day one.
63
@Suzanne Moniz
With this prez, I've given up on dignity and intelligence but WOULD like to see less obvious -- and sustained -- demagoguery bolstered by historic blatant abuse of power. Oh well.
1
those "lock her up" chants made me feel physically ill Suzanne. However one feels/felt about Hiliary Clinton, those chants were chilling.
1