Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsManafort trial - Judge talked to jurors individually - may indicate mistrial?
SpicyFiles @SpicyFiles
If the rumor is true that Judge Ellis has called individual jurors in one by one. And is questioning them about discussing the case, you do understand that alone is grounds for a mistrial, right?
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1171 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Manafort trial - Judge talked to jurors individually - may indicate mistrial? (Original Post)
fleur-de-lisa
Aug 2018
OP
triron
(22,003 posts)1. There are alternates.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)2. Apparently whatever the problem was, it's resolved
The defense got their chance and called no witness or presented any evidence to bolster their "not guilty" plea. Judge Ellis called Manafort to the bench and asked if he wanted to testify to which Manafort replied "No".
Closing arguments are scheduled for Wednesday morning.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)3. Is it typical for a judge to call a defendent
and ask them if they wish to testify? It almost seems prejudicial. The jury should conclude nothing from an unwillingness to testify, but why would a judge call attention to it?
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)4. I suppose it's to ensure the defendent does not actually
wish to testify. I don't read anything into that other than procedural.
Solomon
(12,310 posts)5. Because he has a right to testify and confront the witnesses against him.
.