quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It may seem easy to blame non prosecution decisions on status, one particular or another.

I'm sorry, were there charges against the Obama lawyer Greg Craig and State Department envoy, Cliff Sloan?

You cite this situation, which we know virtually nothing about other than the conclusion of someone in the media that these cases were deferred in that way for that reason, and infer that this is common, lamenting that “ALL who have committed crimes prosecuted and dealt with accordingly, not because of their politics, skin color, or religion, but rather their crimes.”

It certainly happens but it is not always so simple to fix the reasons with confidence. There can be a confluence of factors, too, some laudable, some not so.

jury is deliberating

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/p...inancial-fraud-case/

The government has recommended to the court anywhere between 8 to 10 years in prison for falsifying tax returns, bank fraud conspiracy and failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial records. The maximum sentence for the 18 counts, however, is 305 years.

The government says Manafort hid at least $16 million in income from the IRS between 2010 and 2014. Then, after his money in Ukraine dried up, they allege, he defrauded banks by lying about his income on loan applications and concealing other financial information, such as mortgages.

Several times during their arguments, Downing and Westling referred to the prosecution as the "office of special counsel" and suggested that Manafort was the victim of selective prosecution, an argument the judge had specifically ruled they couldn't make.

The move drew a quick objection outside the presence of the jurors by Andres. In response, Ellis attempted to repair any improper prejudice created by the defense attorneys, instructing jurors to put aside any argument about the government's motive in bringing the case.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

odd that the defense can't claim "selective prosecution" when anyone following this knows that is what happened. Even Judge Ellis said it.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

odd that the defense can't claim "selective prosecution" when anyone following this knows that is what happened. Even Judge Ellis said it.

What did the judge say?

The United States Supreme Court has defined the term as follows: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."[1] The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.[2] From wikipedia

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
jury is deliberating

Papa needs news shoes!

seven-come-eleven!

{blows on dice}

I’m with you Para. I could pretty much give a shit whether Manafort cheated on his taxes.

I’d like to see Team Mueller fail at their first trip to court, as the start of their giant investigatory balloon deflating with a huge fart of dust in the wind.

" What did the judge say?"

"You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Judge T. S. Ellis III said

“You really care about getting information that Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever.”

He said that the crimes described in the indictment “manifestly don’t have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion.”

“I don’t see what relation this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,”

In the defense lawyers' final arguments to the jury, they aren't trying to convince Judge Ellis to dismiss the case.

The defense lawyers are trying to plant something that could contribute to a "reasonable doubt" about declaring Manafort guilty.

The jurors won't read Supreme Court rulings on selective prosecution, but they do have to decide whether to go w "guilty" or "not guilty".

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
" What did the judge say?"

"You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Judge T. S. Ellis III said

“You really care about getting information that Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever.”

He said that the crimes described in the indictment “manifestly don’t have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion.”

“I don’t see what relation this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,”

In the defense lawyers' final arguments to the jury, they aren't trying to convince Judge Ellis to dismiss the case.

The defense lawyers are trying to plant something that could contribute to a "reasonable doubt" about declaring Manafort guilty.

The jurors won't read Supreme Court rulings on selective prosecution, but they do have to decide whether to go w "guilty" or "not guilty".

The jurors won’t be instructed on selective prosecution because the defense did not seek to argue that, nor could they.

I believe the judge’s statements quoted above were all pre-trial, no jury at that point.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...luding-definition-of

The jury in the criminal trial against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort sent a note to the judge asking him to redefine "reasonable doubt" and answer three other questions as their first day of deliberations drew to a close.

Judge T.S. Ellis III, who reconvened court to answer the questions orally for the 12-member jury shortly after 5 p.m., said the government is not required to prove the defendant's guilt beyond all possible doubt — only doubt based on reason.

Manafort's defense team said the jury's question about reasonable doubt is the best question the defense can get.

"It indicates someone has doubts," the team said.

Ellis allowed the jury to recess for the day after their questions were answered.

The jury also asked the court if someone is required to report a foreign bank account if they own less than 50 percent of the company and have no signature authority. They also asked for the definition for “shelf company” and the filing requirements related to income.

A shelf company, according to Investment Bank.com, is one that has taken no actions since its inception, but simply been left to sit on the "shelf." Like shell companies, they are legal entities.

Manafort has been indicted on 18 criminal counts of bank and tax fraud, as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe charges that include failing to report overseas accounts. Federal prosecutors have spent the past two and a half weeks trying to convince the jury that he stashed millions he made as a political consultant for pro-Russian officials in offshore accounts and defrauded banks to obtain loans when the money dried up.

On Thursday afternoon, Ellis re-read the jury instructions for the question relating to the foreign accounts, explaining that a person must own more than 50 percent of the account's profits or capital.

Ellis said the jury would have to rely on their own collective recollections of the testimony provided to define shelf company and the filing requirements related to income.

The jury also asked Ellis if the indictment could be amended to show which pieces of evidence go with which charges. Ellis said no, the jury would have to rely on their own memory of the testimony.

Prosecutor Greg Andres said in court Wednesday there were 388 documents submitted into evidence.

The jury will resume deliberations at 9:30 a.m. Friday.

I brought up selective prosecution earlier in answer to why people may feel a need to root for Manafort.

Procedural rules are often reflections of an innate sense of fairness.

We do not know what pretrial motions were made - at least I don't. A variety of things happened behind the scenes.

Here are some Federal PRETRIAL motions under Rule 12:

(3) Motions That Must Be Made Before Trial.

The following defenses, objections. and requests must be raised by pretrial motion before trial if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits :

(A) a motion alleging a defect in instituting the prosecution;, including: . . . (iv) selective or vindictive prosecution;

If Manafort claimed a selective or vindictive prosecution, the judge would decide. It is not a jury issue. Under Rule 12(d), [t]he court must decide every pretrial motion before trial unless it finds good cause to defer a ruling.

Was anything deferred? The judge could also get a renewed motion to dismiss. So, at this point, the jury is the best bet for Manafort on reasonable doubt but the judge is not out of the mix.

Again, I have not read the pleadings and do not know the status of such a claim, if any.

Does anyone know whether such a motion was made?

The judge in this case seemed fairly clear before trial that this could be a political prosecution.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
I brought up selective prosecution earlier in answer to why people may feel a need to root for Manafort.

Procedural rules are often reflections of an innate sense of fairness.

We do not know what pretrial motions were made - at least I don't. A variety of things happened behind the scenes.

Here are some Federal PRETRIAL motions under Rule 12:

(3) Motions That Must Be Made Before Trial.

The following defenses, objections. and requests must be raised by pretrial motion before trial if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits :

(A) a motion alleging a defect in instituting the prosecution;, including: . . . (iv) selective or vindictive prosecution;

If Manafort claimed a selective or vindictive prosecution, the judge would decide. It is not a jury issue. Under Rule 12(d), [t]he court must decide every pretrial motion before trial unless it finds good cause to defer a ruling.

Was anything deferred? The judge could also get a renewed motion to dismiss. So, at this point, the jury is the best bet for Manafort on reasonable doubt but the judge is not out of the mix.

Again, I have not read the pleadings and do not know the status of such a claim, if any.

Does anyone know whether such a motion was made?

The judge in this case seemed fairly clear before trial that this could be a political prosecution.

The judge denied a motion to dismiss as the prosecution rested. That was denied. The defense then rested without presenting any evidence, so another motion at this point is redundant.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
(3) Motions That Must Be Made Before Trial.

The following defenses, objections. and requests must be raised by pretrial motion before trial if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits :

(A) a motion alleging a defect in instituting the prosecution;, including: . . . (iv) selective or vindictive prosecution;

If Manafort claimed a selective or vindictive prosecution, the judge would decide. It is not a jury issue. Under Rule 12(d), [t]he court must decide every pretrial motion before trial unless it finds good cause to defer a ruling.

Was anything deferred? The judge could also get a renewed motion to dismiss. So, at this point, the jury is the best bet for Manafort on reasonable doubt but the judge is not out of the mix.

Again, I have not read the pleadings and do not know the status of such a claim, if any.

Does anyone know whether such a motion was made?

The judge in this case seemed fairly clear before trial that this could be a political prosecution.

The judge denied a motion to dismiss as the prosecution rested. That was denied. The defense then rested without presenting any evidence, so another motion at this point is redundant.

As stated in an earlier post, the rules allow the defense to renew their motion within 14 days of any verdict.

It used to be 7 days, but the time was increased in, if I remember, 2009. The reason was to give time to make a very strong brief of what one thinks is their best argument.

Also, there were an interesting set of hearings in 2008 titled: ALLEGATIONS OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION: THE EROSION OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN OUR FEDERAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Link

The issue is interesting and, seemingly, important in highly partisan times.

If people do not perceive the justice system as fair, it breaks things down.

There is a Laffer curve to justice just as strong as to voluntary tax compliance.

The rules provide for a motion within 14 days, but don’t you think you would feel and look stupid making a motion to dismiss, which I assume is a speaking motion, possibly backed with good briefing, after the prosecution rests, then announcing that you, the defense, rest, then making the same motion?

Maybe it doesn’t happen very often where the defense puts on no evidence.

I suppose it depends on the case.

Maybe something happens during deliberations. Maybe a new angle comes to mind. Maybe there was something said by the judge while ruling on the first motion.

In trial, there are so many things going on. One may not have put forward his/her best foot by making the motion on a trial day.

There is always the concern about making the best record for appeal. Many things, if not raised to the trial court, are barred on appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
I suppose it depends on the case.

Maybe something happens during deliberations. Maybe a new angle comes to mind. Maybe there was something said by the judge while ruling on the first motion.

In trial, there are so many things going on. One may not have put forward his/her best foot by making the motion on a trial day.

There is always the concern about making the best record for appeal. Many things, if not raised to the trial court, are barred on appeal.

It’s a tricky business all right.

I appreciate you dropping in those rules. It makes a few thungs less murky when you have only the media reports to think about. Few of them have any idea how these things are supposed to work, and that’s not good tv anyway.

The jury asked for a definition of "reasonable doubt."

I bet they are trying to figure out how much they'll each make on a book tour if they acquitt Mr. Manafort.

JALLEN,

In one of his rulings, Judge Ellis wrote:

"Although this case will continue those involved should be sensitive to the danger unleashed when political disagreements are transformed into partisan prosecutions. "

(deleted other comments - medicine kicked in)

CNN, AP, Buzzfeed, NBC, NYT, Politico, and Wash Post have filed a motion asking for names and addresses of the jurors.

they asked for all the sealed records and transcript portions.

Judge Ellis may hold a hearing on this today

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
CNN, AP, Buzzfeed, NBC, NYT, Politico, and Wash Post have filed a motion asking for names and addresses of the jurors.

So if they acquit him or don't convict on any real serious charges they can publish the names and get their militant arm (the fascists) to hound and threaten them and their families mercilessly....just for doing their civic duty.

The names may be a part of the public record, but the propagandists want them for nefarious reasons. Bet on it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/0...ext-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.

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. The judge in DC told the prosecutors on Thursday to "review" their evidence collection "with an eye towards streamlining the presentation of its case."

Manafort's next trial, on foreign lobbying and money laundering charges, is set to begin Sept. 17 in DC federal court and last several weeks longer.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
CNN, AP, Buzzfeed, NBC, NYT, Politico, and Wash Post have filed a motion asking for names and addresses of the jurors.

So if they acquit him or don't convict on any real serious charges they can publish the names and get their militant arm (the fascists) to hound and threaten them and their families mercilessly....just for doing their civic duty.

The names may be a part of the public record, but the propagandists want them for nefarious reasons. Bet on it.

Nah. Interviews, book deals.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but the checkbook is mightier yet.