The trial(s) of [Paul Manafort] - flippin' Friday

So It Goes

Paul Manafort is being tried in Virginia on federal charges of tax evasion and bank fraud. His trial has moved to the jury deliberation stage. The jury is still out but has indicated they may be close to a verdict, though they are having trouble reaching consensus on at least one count : https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/paul-manafort-trial-jury/index.html

Background info:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/us/politics/manafort-trump-trial.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/paul-manafort-trial/566504/

This thread is for specific discussion of the federal cases against Paul Manafort. Wider Mueller investigation discussion, or other threads of the Mueller investigation (like Flynn, Papadapolous, etc) can stay in the Mueller thread please.

Do not retweet Trump here unless it's very relevant.

It's okay to ask questions about the legal system at play here, but it's not the place to debate in detail the merits of our criminal justice system.

DevoutlyApathetic

(s) because there is totally going to be more than one.

So It Goes

DC case is still pending!

Disco11

If he's found guilty for most of the counts of Trial #1 what are the chances he flips for Trail #2?

Diplominator

I found this on r/The_Mueller.

Might be useful. Fingers crossed.

Cog

Crossposting from the last thread.

This is a little reassuring, I guess?

https://cnn.com/2018/08/16/app-politics-section/mueller-manafort-evidence-next-trial/index.html

The Special Counsel's Office has almost three times the number of exhibits it wants to show a jury in Paul Manafort's next criminal trial compared with what it used in his Virginia case.

The evidence for the two trials largely doesn't overlap, according to a court filing Thursday from Manafort's legal team.

...

In Manafort's Virginia trial, which began on July 31, prosecutors presented nearly 400 financial records, emails and other documents to the jury. Manafort's team says the prosecutors have "well over" 1,000 pieces of evidence lined up for the DC federal case, set to go to trial in September.

Though, apparently the DC judge also asked them to review their evidence "with an eye towards streamlining the presentation of its case".

EDIT: Oh, also the DC judge is an Obama appointee, which you'd like to think is also a positive.

So It Goes

Disco11 wrote: »

If he's found guilty for most of the counts of Trial #1 what are the chances he flips for Trail #2?

It's really gonna depend on his mindset and how long his sentence is.

He seems the type to fight til the bitter end, even if he's convicted in Virginia I'm not sure it will sink in totally.

DevoutlyApathetic

I realize what I wrote is way open to interpretation. I can see reading it bitterly. I can see reading it as resigned to mistrials. I intended it as a sorta of resigned "Oh yes, this is 2018 and our President's former campaign manager has so many crimes that we can not possibly try him for all of them at once." Just reminding myself of how far from normal we are.

kaid

It also may be that he does not have enough to offer to get a plea deal he can/will accept. He may have burned that bridge already.

Drake Chambers

Disco11 wrote: »

If he's found guilty for most of the counts of Trial #1 what are the chances he flips for Trail #2?

That's a good question. Maybe it'd depend on the severity of the sentence? I'd guess it'll come down to how much the man has left to lose. If he's already going to do, say, five years, then cutting a deal in the next case is probably the difference between ten and twenty more?

Honestly, who knows. The weight of those decisions becomes unimaginable to me. Couple that with the fact that guy has already done other things I find inexplicable... anyone's guess!

MolotovCockatoo

Why would he flip after getting sentenced to (basically) life in prison? They can't really undo that no matter how much he gives them, and he can't be threatened by MORE jailtime. I think the cooperation ship has sailed for Manafort. I think the silver lining would potentially be other currently unindicted people rethinking their strategies (like Stone, Prince, Jr, etc)

Brody

Thank you so much for splitting this off SiG, it makes it easier to track my anxieties when I don't have to open the Mueller probe thread with a coin flip.

DevoutlyApathetic

MolotovCockatoo wrote: »

Why would he flip after getting sentenced to (basically) life in prison? They can't really undo that no matter how much he gives them, and he can't be threatened by MORE jailtime. I think the cooperation ship has sailed for Manafort. I think the silver lining would potentially be other currently unindicted people rethinking their strategies (like Stone, Prince, Jr, etc)

I think there may still be a window between conviction and sentencing where he could usefully take a deal. After that it's basically pardon stuff which is only in the Oval Offices hands.

RickRude

Between this and Cohen possibly flipping today I feel like a kid on Christmas morning. I keep refreshing cnn hoping for the verdict.

Cog

https://cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/h_e58a0146097a12fcabf5eb932d4bcc7b

Judge T.S. Ellis today told jurors to keep deliberating and instructed them with a "Sawyers charge" — more commonly known as an "Allen charge." The term Sawyers comes from a 1970 court case in the 4th Circuit, US v. Sawyers.

So what is an Allen or Sawyers charge? It is a supplemental instruction given by the trial court when a jury has reached an impasse in its deliberations and is unable to reach a consensus.

This isn't helping my anxiety.

Desktop Hippie

This is all speculation, of course, but to me a single count being the issue implies that the vast majority of verdicts are guilty as opppsed to not guilty.

Do other people think so too? Or is it far more likely that people would quibble over a single count if it makes the difference between time in jail and no time in jail?

Jragghen

Cog wrote: »

https://cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/h_e58a0146097a12fcabf5eb932d4bcc7b

Judge T.S. Ellis today told jurors to keep deliberating and instructed them with a "Sawyers charge" — more commonly known as an "Allen charge." The term Sawyers comes from a 1970 court case in the 4th Circuit, US v. Sawyers.

So what is an Allen or Sawyers charge? It is a supplemental instruction given by the trial court when a jury has reached an impasse in its deliberations and is unable to reach a consensus.

This isn't helping my anxiety.

This is known from the other thread, and currently seems to be on a single charge out of the 18.

Xaquin

Desktop Hippie wrote: »

This is all speculation, of course, but to me a single count being the issue implies that the vast majority of verdicts are guilty as opppsed to not guilty.

Do other people think so too? Or is it far more likely that people would quibble over a single count if it makes the difference between time in jail and no time in jail?

I would think that normally but after 2016 and the Oregon trials, I don't really think anything positive concerning courts

Drake Chambers

.

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

MolotovCockatoo wrote: »

Why would he flip after getting sentenced to (basically) life in prison? They can't really undo that no matter how much he gives them, and he can't be threatened by MORE jailtime. I think the cooperation ship has sailed for Manafort. I think the silver lining would potentially be other currently unindicted people rethinking their strategies (like Stone, Prince, Jr, etc)

I think there may still be a window between conviction and sentencing where he could usefully take a deal. After that it's basically pardon stuff which is only in the Oval Offices hands.

To clarify here, he can make a deal on the second case at any time before the jury comes back with a verdict. Subjects can look for a plea deal mid-trial if they see it's going terribly for them. In a case like that though there's very little incentive for the government to offer a deal.

If what you meant is that he could be convicted at trial and then try and make a deal before he's sentenced for that same case - that's not a thing. (I don't think that's what you were saying but it could read that way.)

Brody

Is a Sawyer's Charge just any instruction given at that point, or is it a specific instruction given at that point?

So It Goes

Drake Chambers wrote: »

.

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

MolotovCockatoo wrote: »

Why would he flip after getting sentenced to (basically) life in prison? They can't really undo that no matter how much he gives them, and he can't be threatened by MORE jailtime. I think the cooperation ship has sailed for Manafort. I think the silver lining would potentially be other currently unindicted people rethinking their strategies (like Stone, Prince, Jr, etc)

I think there may still be a window between conviction and sentencing where he could usefully take a deal. After that it's basically pardon stuff which is only in the Oval Offices hands.

To clarify here, he can make a deal on the second case at any time before the jury comes back with a verdict. Subjects can look for a plea deal mid-trial if they see it's going terribly for them. In a case like that though there's very little incentive for the government to offer a deal.

If what you meant is that he could be convicted at trial and then try and make a deal before he's sentenced for that same case - that's not a thing. (I don't think that's what you were saying but it could read that way.)

You could potentially make some agreement about a recommended sentence in between conviction and sentencing. Not a thing that usually happens though, yeah.

Astaereth

Listening to a podcast a few weeks back, apparently Ellis is known for the kind of behavior he's exhibited during the trial--but he's also known for being a harsh sentencer. If Manafort is found guilty Ellis might throw the book at him.

tbloxham

I would think a single count is likely evidence that the Jury has been considering the facts and is taking their job seriously. If there was a Trump holdout (or a lone voice of reason) then surely they would oppose (or properly insist on guilt) on all counts rather than giving up on all but one.

Trumpist vs good jurors - This is a conspiracy against Trump. He is innocent. I will convict him for nothing.
Good Juror vs Trumpists - The evidence is clear that he is guilty on all counts (and it is), I may as well make a stand on everything rather than a single count.

So, the hung on a single count suggests that they are doing their job and considering the evidence and that only in one area can they not come to a consensus on the quality of the evidence.

DevoutlyApathetic

So It Goes wrote: »

Drake Chambers wrote: »

.

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

MolotovCockatoo wrote: »

Why would he flip after getting sentenced to (basically) life in prison? They can't really undo that no matter how much he gives them, and he can't be threatened by MORE jailtime. I think the cooperation ship has sailed for Manafort. I think the silver lining would potentially be other currently unindicted people rethinking their strategies (like Stone, Prince, Jr, etc)

I think there may still be a window between conviction and sentencing where he could usefully take a deal. After that it's basically pardon stuff which is only in the Oval Offices hands.

To clarify here, he can make a deal on the second case at any time before the jury comes back with a verdict. Subjects can look for a plea deal mid-trial if they see it's going terribly for them. In a case like that though there's very little incentive for the government to offer a deal.

If what you meant is that he could be convicted at trial and then try and make a deal before he's sentenced for that same case - that's not a thing. (I don't think that's what you were saying but it could read that way.)

You could potentially make some agreement about a recommended sentence in between conviction and sentencing. Not a thing that usually happens though, yeah.

Yea, this is what I'm thinking. Normally it would lose a lot of the value of a deal to the prosecutor but this isn't a normal case in any way.

So It Goes

Brody wrote: »

Is a Sawyer's Charge just any instruction given at that point, or is it a specific instruction given at that point?

It's given when necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_v._United_States_(1896)

Example text (could vary depending which District you're in)

Members of the Jury:

I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I have a few additional comments I would like for you to consider as you do so.

This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.

Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.

If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.

You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.

You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.

I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously given to you.

spool32

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

Brody

So It Goes wrote: »

Brody wrote: »

Is a Sawyer's Charge just any instruction given at that point, or is it a specific instruction given at that point?

It's given when necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_v._United_States_(1896)

Example text (could vary depending which District you're in)

Members of the Jury:

I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I have a few additional comments I would like for you to consider as you do so.

This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.

Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.

If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.

You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.

You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.

I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously given to you.

Ok, there is a specific intent to the Sawyer/Allen Charge. I just wasn't sure if like "no you can't have a new jury ballot" at that time could also be considered an Sawyer/Allen Charge.

Cog

My understanding is that it's essentially the Judge telling the jury that if they come to him saying they're deadlocked, he's going to tell them to go keep trying.

Xaquin

spool32 wrote: »

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

this isn't the mueller trial is it?

or is that the Cohen one

effing administration is impossible to keep straight

edit: NM, this is mueller, I was confused with Cohen, sorry

So It Goes

Cog wrote: »

My understanding is that it's essentially the Judge telling the jury that if they come to him saying they're deadlocked, he's going to tell them to go keep trying.

Yep which he's already done once so far.

I am hoping if they come back still deadlocked he will let that be the end of it. Especially since they've indicated it's only on one count.

Cog

spool32 wrote: »

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

Does Mueller have any influence over this? I thought it was essentially up to the judge. I guess the prosecution can recommend/request some specific sentencing, but it's still Ellis's choice?

Preacher

Cog wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

Does Mueller have any influence over this? I thought it was essentially up to the judge. I guess the prosecution can recommend/request some specific sentencing, but it's still Ellis's choice?

Judge has final say, prosecutors submit recommendations on sentencing though.

So It Goes

Cog wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

Does Mueller have any influence over this? I thought it was essentially up to the judge. I guess the prosecution can recommend/request some specific sentencing, but it's still Ellis's choice?

At sentencing after a trial both sides make a recommendation and the judge decides.

The prosecution could agree to make a joint recommendation with the defense for something less than what they might have asked for on their own.

I think this is unlikely to happen, though.

More likely might be that the team on the DC case makes one last attempt to flip him before that trial starts.

VishNub

Cog wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

Does Mueller have any influence over this? I thought it was essentially up to the judge. I guess the prosecution can recommend/request some specific sentencing, but it's still Ellis's choice?

IIRC the judge can reject a sentencing deal, but would likely accept one if both defense and prosecution are in favor.

PantsB

There's also a whole other trial that Mueller can still modify charges on if Manafort flips

So It Goes

Xaquin wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

this isn't the mueller trial is it?

or is that the Cohen one

effing administration is impossible to keep straight

edit: NM, this is mueller, I was confused with Cohen, sorry

It's particularly bad today isn't it.

spool32

Cog wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

Does Mueller have any influence over this? I thought it was essentially up to the judge. I guess the prosecution can recommend/request some specific sentencing, but it's still Ellis's choice?

Sentencing leniency, and Mueller has a second case pending in DC, the campaign-related one.

Kruite

So It Goes wrote: »

Xaquin wrote: »

spool32 wrote: »

If he's guilty, I feel like Mueller's immediate play is "flip and we'll go easy on you at sentencing".

this isn't the mueller trial is it?

or is that the Cohen one

effing administration is impossible to keep straight

edit: NM, this is mueller, I was confused with Cohen, sorry

It's particularly bad today isn't it.

that the universe hasn't been destroyed yet is a puzzling thought; wait...

Smurph

PantsB wrote: »

There's also a whole other trial that Mueller can still modify charges on if Manafort flips

It won't really matter if Manafort gets 20+ years from these charges. He's 69 years old.

Best Mueller can do is recommend lighter sentencing but he can't make the judge agree to that.

I think Manafort's flipping window has closed.

GONG-00

There is some value from dropping a load of bricks onto Manafort as an example to those feeling like the rules do not apply to them.

Unknown

This content has been removed.