Hasn't it been less than 24 hours? Do they have anything to say?

They made a motion to dismiss, the motion was denied, an now on to closing arguments.

It takes a whole jury to hang a defendant, but 1 juror to hang a jury.

1) they don't want Manafort to testify because the prosecution can likely rebut anything he says and make him look bad in his own defense.
2) Also, from what I was reading, the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and if the defense puts on their own case, there is a small tendency for jurors to also hold the defense to that same beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
3) If the defense has a flimsy case, resting with no defense makes them look more confident than they really are.
4) If the defense puts on a case and does not call the defendant, there can be a bias against the defendant even though jurors are instructed to ignore that.


More detail here

Link to tweet

The burden of proof is on the prosecution and, unless there is an affirmative defense, defense counsel doesn't want to give them any more ammunition to convict their client.

He is facing an additional trial and would not want his testimony under oath to affect that outcome. Also he may be looking for a pardon or possibly a deal for testimony. The first seems to me to be the most probable. Just guessing.

which can take awhile. There are approved form jury instructions but the parties have to agree on which ones and which elements of each instruction to include, then the judge has to approve them. So that will probably take all afternoon.

It is the prosecution's burden, after all.

But it is still a gamble.

... where the prosecution’s case is circumstantial in some places, and where the defense is hoping for a dismissal or a directed verdict based on a technical deficiency. They would have made their substantive defenses through cross exam of the prosecutions witnesses anyway.

It might be a gamble (I’m not as up to speed on the nuts and bolts/elements of the prosecution’s case as I’d like to be), but it also allows the defense lawyers to argue to the jury that the govt’s case is so weak and insufficient that we didn’t have to put on witnesses.

Picking up popcorn on my way home tonight.

... there isn't a mountain of evidence in the case. I'm sure there is. But it only takes a weakness on a specific but crucial element to create a vulnerability. If the prosecution must prove elements A, B, C and D to get a conviction, they could have boat loads of evidence on A, B and D, but may have to rely on inferences and circumstantial evidence to make element C. Convictions are obtained every day on reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence - so I'm not being a naysayer by any means. Just trying to pontificate on why the defense lawyers might decide not to put on a case.

I hope you're right. I have great confidence in Meuller's team. I suspect a conviction is likely based on what we know and what my experiences have been with US attorneys. But I have not been in the courtroom, and I have not studied the elements of the charges brought.

Rick Gates is lying and the Judge doesn't like the prosecutors argument.

Link to tweet

WOW INDEED

They're giving Manafort something to appeal...incompetent representation!!!

Much of the evidence is on paper and can't be refuted. The defense got to cross-examine all of the prosecution's witnesses, so that was basically the presentation of their defense. There probably are no witnesses that can refute any of the facts presented in the case in chief except for Manafort, and they wouldn't want to call him because the prosecution would eat his lunch on cross-examination - it probably would have been malpractice for the defense not to have rested at this point. The prosecution still has the burden of proving all elements of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt, which will be the basis of the defense's closing argument.

BTW, appeals based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel almost never succeed. It's a very low bar - the lawyer has to have been completely inept, drunk, asleep, a no-show or dead. Manafort's lawyers are, by all accounts, some of the best in their field and they seem to have done as good a job as they could, considering what they had to work with.

Either they think they don't have a shot, or they so confident they don't want to risk blowing something?

Perhaps the defense feels that the prosecution hasn't proved its case, and they're counting on the dazzling oratory of the defense counsel to raise enough questions in jurors' minds to create a reasonable doubt. The defense may also be conceding that they don't have any witnesses who will speak to Manafort's innocence of intent in his multinational financial shenanigans. The defense may have read the jury and concluded that they have at least one person who will vote not guilty.

We'll see what the defense closing argument says. That will be their last chance to present their case and show their strategy.

They're hoping that juror Dzhon Smit ... I mean, John Smith, who's not a Russian at all ... will vote to acquit.

When he goes to the next trial, will they let him wear a suit and look like an innocent person, or will be arrive wearing his prison clothes?

Yes, he will be allowed a suit. Would you have him brought in chains? Do you have the same complaint about black poor defendants when they are allowed to have suit at trial?

Seriously, none whatsoever.

He will be innocent of crimes in the other trial unless he is found guilty.

to know if when they bring a convict out of prison to try him for additional crimes, they keep him in prison clothes or not.

The only time people have to wear jail clothes is for jail hearings, such as bail, outside of jury matters.

Why are you taking such a patronizing tone? If you know the answer just say so and stop trying to imply she’s racist.

I appreciate your understanding.

the law says he IS innocent until he's proved guilty. All defendants are presumed innocent for the duration of their trials. So yes, he can wear a suit.

The next time he's in court will be part of this trial, where he will properly be allowed a suit.

They'll probably allow him a suit at his appeal too.

Or at least they have solid reason to expect one.

after the prosecution's case when most of the evidence is on paper. If they have no reason to call additional witnesses they'll rely on their cross-examination of the government's witnesses along with their closing argument. The possibility of a pardon, if that possibility even exists, is completely irrelevant. I am not even slightly surprised that the defense has rested.

This is just flat wrong. Prosecutors love paper evidence, along with visual and physical evidence, because it's difficult to impeach; the defense usually has to call expert witnesses to get down in the weeds and muddy the waters. It's hard to discredit documents during cross unless you happen to be questioning the author (eg the accountant who prepared a financial statement, the cop who collected the bloody glove and wrote the report etc.)

Not presenting a case when the evidence against you consists primarily of hard documents means either you are convinced the documents are so weak and shabby that most people would ignore them, or you are accepting a guilty verdict for some reason.

is an act of futility? I'm guessing there was so much evidence presented against him, that was so overwhelmingly against him, they decided not to waste their time and efforts on him.

Link to tweet

I suspect #1 is the main driver. Can't defend the indefensible.

Other than perjury what can you possibly say when your client is guilty as hell?

Manafort's team was hoping Ellis would take a day or 2 to decide on their motion. Had he done so, the jury would think the government had a shaky case. Ellis could even have thrown out a few counts.

They gambled, lost. And by not calling Paulie to the stand, he looks guilty as fuck.

Prediction: acquittal on 3 charges, guilty on rest. Appeal while rotting in jail.

trump WILL NOT pardon--no upside to it for him. Manafort would have to testify w/out 5th amendment protection, fully and truthfully, which could open him up to state and civil charges [creditors].

On the bright side for Manafort: his value as a gov't witness will increase, for a brief period of time.

These motions are almost always made in cases like this and the judge decides almost immediately (or at the very most defers the ruling until the defense has completed their case). They never take a "day or two".

is simply an argument that the facts presented by the prosecution were insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged. These motions are routine and almost always denied, but they must be made in order to preserve that claim on appeal. The judge would have expected it. It would not have taken a day or two to prepare or decide.

1. They are rolling the dice and hoping that somehow the jury doesn't convict.
2. He is clearly guilty, so any additional evidence presented in the defense could just dig the hole deeper.
3. Who would they even call to his defense? Trump? Putin? Kilimnik?

Looks like.

So damn guilty his own defense team won’t stand up and fight for him.

Let’s hope the judges outbursts don’t get Manafort acquitted.