General Discussion

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts) Tue Aug 14, 2018, 01:52 PM Aug 2018

Good Twitter thread on why Manafort's lawyers put on up no defense argument or called any witnesses

Sorry, I can't cut & paste this in the office.

Link to tweet

?s=19

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Good Twitter thread on why Manafort's lawyers put on up no defense argument or called any witnesses (Original Post) NewJeffCT Aug 2018 OP

Interesting ideas on why the defense rested it's case in there. yonder Aug 2018 #1

Thanks, Jeff..."Finally, your defense may just suck." Leghorn21 Aug 2018 #2

thank you NewJeffCT Aug 2018 #4

Try this: mahatmakanejeeves Aug 2018 #3

yonder

(9,666 posts)

1. Interesting ideas on why the defense rested it's case in there.

Reply to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Tue Aug 14, 2018, 02:11 PM

Aug 2018

Here's a comment from that which made me laugh. RE Manafort:

Dr. Random J. Gopher
? @Winkypopo
Replying to @Popehat

It also doesn't look great when your client rotates his eyes in two different directions to check for predators, then licks one to clean it.
9:51 AM - 14 Aug 2018

Sorry, I don't know how to do the twitter copy thing.

Leghorn21

(13,524 posts)

2. Thanks, Jeff..."Finally, your defense may just suck."

Reply to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Tue Aug 14, 2018, 02:15 PM

Aug 2018

2 Remember it's the prosecution's burden to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. When the defense puts on a case, there's always a subtle tendency for the jury to start putting a burden on the defense, which you don't want.

/3 If your defense case is marginal anyway, resting is a way to convey to the jury a level of confidence that the government has nothing. It's a way to emphasize that it's the government's burden.

/4 Another subtle problem with putting on a defense case is that it emphasizes when the defendant doesn't testify. Defendant isn't required to, prosecution isn't allowed to call attention to it, but juries notice.

/5 Next, one of the toughest things to learn as a trial lawyer is to sit down when you've gotten something done as well as it's going to get done. They may have accomplished on cross-examination everything they reasonably could in a defense case . . . .

/6 ...when you've already accomplished what you want (showing Gates to be a liar, for example), you need to be careful of trying to pile more on, because things can go wrong and you can lose what you accomplished.

/7 This is especially true with skeevy/questionable defense witnesses. If you're unlucky they get up there, give you some marginal testimony, and then the AUSA gets up and joyrides them all over your case for an hour. Skeevy people do badly on cross.

/8 Plus, the government doesn't necessarily have to give you impeachment evidence about witnesses they aren't calling. Do they have something really horrific on your defense witness, and they're just hoping you'll call that person? Guess you'll find out, huh.

/9 Finally, your defense may just suck. For every good thing your witnesses might say, they might have to admit four bad things on cross. This is not unusual when knowledge or intent are the issue at hand .......

/10 ...the defense direct goes "did defendant ever say he was trying to hide money?" "no" Then the prosecution gets up and takes the witness through the eight skeevy things the defendant did suggesting consciousness of guilt. It winds up emphasizing the government's case.

/11 And, let's bear in mind that we are in a historic, unique situation. Manafort may be counting on a pardon, in which case there's little upside to a defense.

But it's not unusual and one cannot CONFIDENTLY draw any conclusion from it.

/end

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts)

4. thank you

Reply to Leghorn21 (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 14, 2018, 02:23 PM

Aug 2018

for laying it all out

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,446 posts)

3. Try this:

Reply to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Tue Aug 14, 2018, 02:22 PM

Aug 2018

You do have to unroll the thread manually. DU doesn't make that happen automatically.

Hat tip, Betty Bowers, for the link.

If you are puzzled by Manafort's lawyers not even bothering with a defense, here is a great thread that explains why that decision may have been made, irrespective of any expectation of pardon:

Link to tweet

Ok. So. Why would the Manafort defense team not put on a defense, and how unusual is it?

It's not unusual at all. It's common. Here are some possible reasons why. /1

Link to tweet

Reply to this discussion