I’ve been called for jury duty a few times but I’ve always been rejected. Having never sat on a jury, I can’t say for sure how I would feel about it if the defense decided to rest without calling any witnesses or having their client testify. If the person is truly innocent, then why not try to demonstrate that in some way beyond simple cross-examination of government witnesses? I guess it’s much harder for me to accept not having a defense at all than it is to grant the accused the right not to speak in their own defense. I know that if I were falsely prosecuted that my lawyers would have trouble convincing me to remain silent, but they’d never get away with resting my case without making one at all.
But that’s what Paul Manafort’s lawyers did today.
Defense attorneys for Paul Manafort rested their case on Tuesday without calling any witnesses or having the former Trump campaign chairman testify in the trial where he is accused of bank and tax fraud.
At the same time, the judge overseeing the trial rejected Manafort’s motion to throw out the 18 charges against him.
Manafort, who has watched silently as the case against him was argued in federal court, was asked by Judge T.S. Ellis whether he wanted to testify in his own defense.
“No, sir,” he replied.
Asked whether he was satisfied with the advice he’d gotten from his attorneys, Manafort said, “I am, your honor.”
Ellis indicated that prosecutors and Manafort’s lawyers would likely make closing arguments to the 12-person jury on Wednesday. After that, the jury will begin its deliberations behind closed doors.
Obviously, the defense will say that the government has not met the burden of proof and suggest that their case is so weak that it doesn’t require rebuttal from expert witnesses. Maybe there’s a juror who is unwilling to convict Manafort because he or she has been convinced it’s all part of an elaborate Deep State plot to nullify the 2016 election. That would result in a mistrial, which is almost certainly the best outcome Manafort can hope for. I believe the documents in this case speak for themselves and there’s not really any ambiguity about Manafort’s guilt. An outright acquittal seems like an impossibility.
Assuming Manafort is convicted, I’m not sure much will change. He’s already in prison. He still faces even more severe charges in Washington DC where he’ll presumably have a less sympathetic judge and a tougher jury pool. Will a conviction in Virginia and the certainty of an extended prison sentence change Manafort’s calculus and lead him to seek a cooperation deal?
It’s possible, but he seems to be either afraid to cooperate or holding out hope of a pardon, or perhaps both of those things. Getting convicted would not logically change how he feels or his overall strategy.
In any case, I think if I was sitting on his jury and I had any doubt about his guilt, his lack of a defense would seal the deal for me. How about you?
I have actually been on two juries. In one of them, the prosecution had a very weak case. I actually have no idea why they took it to trial. The defendant did testify, and all he had to do was deny the allegations. That made it a she said/he said and we acquitted in five minutes. I would imagine that if the defense had not called him and merely said in closing arguments that the prosecution hadn’t proved its case we might have acquitted anyway, but I expect a lot of the jurors would have wondered why he didn’t take an oath and deny the charges so I’m not sure what would have happened.
In this case, obviously, there is no defense. It’s hard to imagine what any witness could say that would impeach the prosecution’s case. I think the bottom line is he’s screwed and he knows it, as you say, just hoping for a rogue juror. I don’t think he’ll get a pardon because that wouldn’t do Orange Julius any good. It would mean Manafort would have to testify. Manafort obviously has no loyalty to the bloated ignoramus, and doesn’t owe him anything, so most likely he’s scared of Putin, would be my conclusion.
I think this analysis is correct but if he does decide to flip on Trump, I think he could ask to be placed in the witness protection program if he’s afraid of Putin.
As for a rogue juror, I would hope that Mueller’s team would have done a better job than that.
It’s my understanding the jury selection was remarkably fast — yes, upon checking I see it took just one day. Heck, they had it done by 2:00 p.m. Normally in a high-profile case it can take double or triple that time as the judge and attorneys sift carefully through the pool to root out bias.
Of course, a lot of the weeding-out process likely happened before the venire reached the courtroom, with a questionnaire all prospective jurors had to fill out:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/read-paul-manafort-jury-questionnaire/index.html
Still, one can’t help wondering whether the speed of jury selection put a crimp in the prosecution’s ability to get the best (for them) jury.
I feel pulled in opposite directions. On one hand, they say the truth is an absolute defense. So you’d think an innocent person would feel emboldened enough to tell their side of the story, and get everyone else involved to tell all they knew.
Otoh a revision of the old adage occurs to me: If you have nothing true to say, don’t say anything.
I guess the pardon option makes the most sense. But in that case, what do you make of the idea that a pardoned Manafort has no 5th Amendment rights to fall back on? Does he lie or let it all hang out? Surely everyone on Team Trump and Team Manafort have had this all explained to them in detail.
When I lived in Colorado I used to joke that I was on the Park County Preferred Jurors List. On separate occasions, I sat through cases involving drunk driving, a fist fight at a PTA meeting, and “emotional distress” caused when someone put up a gate across a dirt road. All three cases were essentially silly but I was impressed each time by how seriously jurors took their responsibilities.
Yeah, well, how many people actually live in Park County? 25? 30?
Sure, there’s Bailey, but I think everyone there just pretends they live in Denver. And everyone in Alma has warrants out for them from the other 49 states, so good luck getting them to show up.
This gave me a chuckle.
I gotta admit that I would have paid to be on a jury trail about a fist fight at a PTA meeting in Park County.
It was every bit the trial you’d expect.
This is the advantage of a strong and lengthy paper case. The defense may have objected to Gates as a poor witness but with every part of his testimony the prosecution had the papertrail to back it up.
That the damning testimony from others was given from people who were also complicit to the extent they had to be given immunity just underscored Manafort’s guilt.
Judge Ellis seems to have walked right up to the line of influencing against the prosecution, I only hope he didn’t make the mistake of assuming the prosecution’s case was solid enough to win no matter what just like America assumed HRC would become the next president.
this is my fear as well. I’ve seen all those former prosecutors as guest pundits take up for the Judge, albeit it seemed to me that he was weakening the prosecution’s case. Now I’m reading/hearing rumors that one of the juror’s is truly tainted and the unspoken fear is that there will be a mistrial. Golly, I hope not.
” … all part of an elaborate Deep State plot to nullify the 2016 election. That would result in a mistrial…”
Maybe during jury selection something jumped out at the defense attorneys about one or two jurors.
Of course, it COULD also be that Manafort is so palpably guilty that anyone who would testify for him would be crucified.
But the most likely (Occam’s razor) is that Manafort and his lawyers have been told by the Mob “grin and bear it”.
Conviction, followed by the pardon option (provided that he really has kept his mouth shut), then followed…or even preceded…by a quick retreat to whatever county would protect him from being handed back to the U.S.
You don’t need to worry about losing your 5th Amendment rights if you are unavailable for questioning, right?
AG
I’m actually impressed, AG. IMO, this is plausible. For the sake of our democracy and its institutions, I do hope he is guilty and if Trump pardons him, then so be it because that in and of itself will hasten the end of the President’s occupancy of the White House.
Manafort’s retreat to another country is problematic as he has the September trial coming up and he’s already had his passport taken and accounts frozen. The judge for the upcoming trial may consider him a flight risk, revoke bond and move him to a jail cell locally.
He got slapped with jail for witness tampering.
And flight risk.
Let us pray it so.
AG
I spent 15 years as a legal aid lawyer and won a number of cases without putting on a defense. Not suggesting it will happen here as it certainly does seem like the evidence is overwhelming based on the reporting, but unless you are in the jury room it is impossible to tell. As I would tell my clients, this isn’t math and jurors can focus on weird (sometimes incredibly weird) things. Every attorney, whether prosecuting or defending, has won cases he/she should have lost, and lost cases he/she should have won. We shall see.
Yes, but this is federal. U.S. Attorneys don’t take anything to trial unless the FBI tells them it’s a 98% lock on conviction. And their jury pool is different. When I prosecuted in Cook County, we had to take our jurors from Cook County residents. Next door, in Republican Du Page County, no one got acquitted.
The federal Northern District of Illinois had everywhere from the Indiana border to the Iowa border from which to pick their jurors. Plenty of farmers to choose from.
. . . successfully defend myself on principle before a six-person jury against a bullshit stop-sign-violation ticket. Proving that, at least occasionally, you in fact can successfully fight City Hall; and that it’s not always true that a pro se defendant has a fool for a client, though probably still sound advice in the vast majority of cases, the more so the more serious the alleged violation and its penalties.)
I have served on one jury, over a serious, violent crime, with serious-but-temporary consequences for the 80-something victim and very serious long-term consequences for the perp (young, black male in OKC; I don’t write “alleged” because we indeed found him guilty). One of the hardest, most conscience-conflicting things I’ve had to do, which left me with zero respect for some of my fellow jurors and greatly reduced faith in our “justice” system and its trial-by-jury-of-peers component. Specifically, from that experience, I find the thought of being wrongly accused and tried before a jury of something of which I was innocent terrifying, and am left with no confidence that justice would prevail.
Which finally brings me around to the substance of your post: I think it’s a very brash, risky, and desperate gambit by the defense. I presume the jury will get instructions from the judge that they are not to read anything into either Manafort’s silence or the defense’s failure to call any witnesses or otherwise mount any defense at all beyond cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness, but to render judgment solely based on the facts presented to them and the law as explained to them in his instructions. Perhaps he’ll also again remind them to “put aside” his own egregious errors from the bench against the prosecution. I presume the defense’s summation will continue to put Gates on trial and attack his credibility, though this looks doomed since, as you note, there’s lots of damning independent and documentary evidence besides Gates’s testimony and not dependent on his credibility.
The defense’s sole, thin reed of a hope seems to be for success of the claim (which seems patently absurd to me, but again, IANAL) that because the bank CEO was in on the fraud, Manafort’s not guilty of the fraud. To me, that just looks like a confession of conspiracy between the two of them to defraud the bank, but whadoiknow? Seems a lot might depend on the judge’s instructions to the jury on that legal point.
I was an alternate juror for a guy accused of 2 murders, one of them agrivated. (Didn’t know I was an alternate until the testimony was all over. ) The guy didn’t testify and that was no surprise. During jury selection, they asked us multiple times if this would prejudice us against him. I assumed he didn’t testify because he was a giant asshole. Whatever. He was convicted on both counts & I wasn’t surprised. But I don’t think his not testifying was any big factor in the verdict.
. . . the evidence against you is overwhelming enough on its own, i.e., proves guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”, then any added prejudice against you (even in violation of the judge’s instructions) based on not testifying in your own defense is functionally irrelevant.
Which looks to me to be the case with the Manafort trial.
My comments echo UNzeke’s. As an attorney, all I can say is nothing surprises me when it comes to juries. I think the government has presented an excellent case. The judge is either lacking in self-reflection skill or doesn’t care about preserving his own credibility. But it wouldn’t surprise me, or at least it wouldn’t shock me, if the jury followed what was essentially his telegraphing of an outlook and a preference.
As for justice, our system is far from perfect. To think a fair or just outcome is likely in most cases is to hold an idealized, almost childlike perspective. The right to trial is important. Without it, one has no chance. But even with it, it’s merely the right to seek out justice. In no way is justice promised or routinely delivered. To a degree that can be shocking to those not already in the know, money has a huge impact on our system. The best illustration is of course the disparate outcomes when a guilty guy like OJ goes free while many charged with far lesser crimes go to prison for decades, in many cases convicted wrongly or with inadequate assistance of counsel.
I’ve been on 3 juries, 2 criminal, one civil, one in Federal court;the others in local solicitor’s court. The case that has stuck with me since it was tried about 20 years ago was one with a young AA male charged with 1st Degree Murder. He had gone into a local convenience store with a young white guy who, in the process of committing a robbery, pulled a gun and shot and killed the Indian (as in, from India Indian)owner/proprietor. The murder itself was big news at the time. Now, not so much, because AA gangs have created a deadly killing zone in a growing swath of the city.
Anyways, there were 3 defendants, the young Black man, the white shooter, and the driver of the getaway car who pleaded out prior to the trial of the young Black man whose jury I was on. He was found guilty, much to my dismay because instead of being charged as an accessory to the crime/murder (he had no gun and was in a different part of the store when the killing occurred) the law had been changed so that defendants like him would be treated as if he had actually pulled the trigger. Plus, the fact that he had a terrible public defender and he could barely speak understandable English put him at serious disadvantage from the getgo. There were 3 jurors reluctant to find him guilty, two white persons and a Black person. The jury was more than 50% African American.
We were finally convinced to rule with the others after being provided the specific verbiage in the law being used to convict him and send him to jail for the rest of his life. I do not think that justice was served with that verdict. I also learned that it is very hard to be in the minority on a jury. I still think about that case and that young Black man taking the stand in his own defense,so scared and so alone.
If I were Trump I wouldn’t pardon Manafort. It’s great for him, but terrible for Trump.
Once pardoned Manafort has no further 5th amendment right. He can be forced to testify, but worse, IF he lies or obstructs justice AFTER getting immunity, then that’s a brand new charge and they can go after him again.
As mentioned by several above, Manafort’s lawyer’s may be fairly certain that it is impossible for the prosecution to exclude all National Trumpalists from every single jury. These very special members of the Trumpite Volk know (from Foxist News) it is their fated duty to vote for acquittal until a mistrial is declared and the MAGA rapture occurs.
The other stratagem that Manafort has is the upcoming ramming of “conservative” activist Kavanaugh onto the Trump Court, giving Roberts 5 rock-solid Nixonian pro-executive votes. Manafort has already (unsuccessfully) challenged the constitutionality of Mueller’s office and investigation, and Manafort (if convicted) can cool his heels in some nice home-office arrest bullshit while his case makes it up to the (newly reinforced) Roberts’ Repubs. The 5 conservative activists masquerading as “justices” then declare Mueller unconstitutional, Manafort’s conviction is permanently reversed and he goes back to his happy home, sans ankle bracelet.
Indeed, the conservative law brigades may seek to get this issue in front of Roberts’ Repubs immediately upon the coming Kavanaugh Cram-down, so that Mueller’s report to Congress can be similarly downplayed as unconstitutional by Congressional Repubs.
While it might seem and incredible strategy, we know that no argument, however idiotic, is too stupid or in too much bad faith not to be gulped down by The 46% in support of their Trumper.
I am sure the prosecutors knew all there was to know about these prospective jurors. One slipped through in Julie Hyatt Steele’s trial, but that was an anomaly.
At his age, he doesn’t have the 3-4 years it could take to work its way to the Supreme Court, and, even then, I expect they’d decline to take the appeal. They don’t need it, and Manafort is an unsympathetic defendant.
I served on a jury some years ago. It was a civil case, medical malpractice. The defense called lots of witnesses, but the one witness that would have been the most important did not appear. Defense claimed that this was because said witness now resided in a neighboring state and could not be compelled to testify.
The way this came over to me is that if the witness could provide testimony favorable to the defense, they would have made damn sure she appeared. But they didn’t … ergo. I mean, this woman could have answered the key questions. Along with everything else I heard and saw, they lost me right there. And I was arguably the person on the jury most open to defense’s arguments.
Seth Abramson on Twitter explains the reasons why no defense might be the best defense in a case like this.
Not sure why folks are certain Manafort will be found guilty. I read an interesting thread on twitter where it was explained that the defense resting like this is a common tactic. That they mounted their defense in cross-examination and are confident that reasonable doubt will carry the day. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution.
I will not be at all surprised if Manafort is acquitted or the jury is hung. It would be so in line with the horror show we’ve been living through.
Some years ago, I sat on a petty theft trial- 12 jurors, 2 alternates, 3 days, yea… they can only get away with it because they pay us pennies. However, it actually ended up being a pretty interesting trial with it’s own Perry Mason moment at the end. As I recall, the defense didn’t present any witnesses and the defendant didn’t testify. And it ended up being a pretty easy acquittal. The cross examination of the prosecution witnesses ended up being really devastating, so much so that the prosecutor had to tap dance in their closing arguments and claim it was an inside job, with no real evidence to back it up. He might have been right, but there was no way that they could have overcome the “reasonable doubt” standard without presenting anything more tenable then a theory that he probably came up with minutes before presenting his arguments.
I don’t see that happening in the Manafort case. Just way too much documentation to corroborate the testimony. The biggest danger to conviction would be if somehow a MAGA clown got on the jury and was smart enough to not get kicked off during deliberations.
Now, wouldn’t this be just the icing on the cake for the nightmare era in which we currently reside!