I really doubt that there will be a hung jury on every charge

As all the charges against him in this trial do not involve Trump.

and the judge's instruction couldn't really unring that bell.

Why do you think Drumpf won't publish his tax returns?
So jury won't matter.
Why do you think
Manafart did not bother with even a single defense witness???

to bring them. And it's "too," not "to."

will it have to be retried by the same judge, who spent most of the trial sitting on the scale?

First, the judge can't just declare a mistrial just because he feels like it; there's a specific procedure that must be followed. Fed. R. Crim.P. 26.3 says: "Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives." The rule "is directed at providing both sides an opportunity to place on the record their views about the proposed mistrial order. In particular, the court must give each side an opportunity to state whether it objects or consents to the order." In other words, both sides have to have an opportunity to argue for or against it, and the judge will need to be able to justify any order.

There is no absolute requirement that a new judge be assigned to a retrial following a mistrial because it's not considered a completely new trial. However, if there is any question as to whether the original trial judge acted improperly, the supervising chief judge can assign a different one. In one case where the trial judge failed to follow proper procedures (he did not question the foreperson, poll the jurors individually, or hold a hearing with counsel and the defendant outside the presence of the jury), the appellate court held that a different judge would have to be assigned to the retrial, if the government decided to hold one.

A family friend was involved in not one, but two hung juries in the same case, so they are all too real to me -- even though I know they are rare.

In that case, the second trial was done in a different city before a different judge, so I wondered what the usual procedure is.

I think it's possible a judge like Ellis could affect the outcome, but I don't think most judges are like Ellis.

I can't imagine that they'd hang on all 18 counts.

Can't you?

When a trial involves a large number of counts like this one, what is more likely to happen when one juror is reluctant to convict, is that the jury works out a sort of compromise with the "holdout" juror by agreeing to acquit on one or two of the more minor charges in exchange for convicting on the others. There is always a lot of pressure on reluctant jurors from the rest of them (and this is a 12-member criminal jury - that's lots of pressure), which is why hung juries are rare and when they do occur, usually involve charges of a single crime. Since each of these crimes involves different evidence it seems unlikely that a juror would refuse to convict on all of them - especially after the judge apparently interviewed all of the jurors, possibly looking for influence or bias.

So far I think Ellis should be impeached. I’m not sure how that would affect any trial outcome, appeals etc. Update, it was just reported someone on the jury is asking about definitions of reasonable doubt and shell companies. It is not looking good but who knows. He was already put back in jail for communicating with witnesses I think. It makes me suspicious that there may be jury tampering as well.

A well known lawyer on Twitter who's been on Chris Hayes said juries ask this question at least 40% of the time.

to the defense.

hung jury??? DAMN IT.

You just can't draw any conclusions one way or the other as to the final decision from the questions the jury asked; it's a complicated case and it's likely that they are trying to be thorough and make sure they have a solid understanding of the terminology, the charges and the evidence. That's the way juries usually behave. Biased or otherwise unsuitable potential jurors are screened out before the jury is impaneled; this is especially true in federal court.

mean that something was amiss with the jury. That's my opinion.

is that so hard to imagine?

Link to tweet

They don't know any more than we do but they have air time to fill.

Link to tweet

See's a hung jury. PER the questions being asked.

I'm definitely NO LT, but a hung jury on all 18 charges or on one of them?

Laurence Tribe
?Verified account

@tribelaw
1h1 hour ago
More Laurence Tribe Retweeted Steven Mazie
I agree. Hung jury odds have just gone up, in my view.Laurence Tribe added,
Steven Mazie
Verified account

@stevenmazie
The jurors’ question re: meaning of “reasonable doubt“ suggests at least one juror harbors at least some doubt. Not promising for prosecution.

Is that so hard to imagine?

Oh shit ..... well, ManFART might get away then as fa as this trial is concerned

All these people want Omarosa size book deals, and they're going to do the right thing. If the trial falls through though, our system has taken a nuclear putin sized hit across the board and it may be time to start thinking about fighting back. I'll be the first to enlist. I can probably out run most kids a third my age.
No Justice NO PEACE!

Paid by oligarchs, Russian and American

We've gotten used to Friday good news. lets hope for that? If not, the State trial is where he's going to jail anyway, bc, you know don ivans going to pardon him on these federal charges. I hope he is lodged in jail pending the next trial though, bc once this guy splits...he's in the arms of Mother Russia forever.
8 women 4 men. I think the girls can put the boots to a trumper in the back room. Lets hope. Money has crushed this country and has proven to be the ultimate phyrric(?) panacea.

Hell I have nothing but a layman's understanding of trials or Courts, civil or criminal.

I have been present at a trial only once. Just for one single, solitary day. Just an interested observer in a local rape and murder trial back in the late 80's. But I reckon I witnessed perhaps the rarest thing ever seen in any courtroom anywhere on Earth.

The mother of the slain victim was called to testify by the Defense in an attempt to besmirch the victim's reputation. She was duly sworn, on the stand and had answered about an hour's worth of questions when she reached into her purse (that she had been allowed to carry with her to the witness stand) and pulled out a .38 calibre pistol and proceeded to get off 3 rounds aimed at the two defendants who had raped and murdered her daughter. Just 3 shots because the Bailiff reacted rather quickly, placing the would be assassin in a bear hug disarming her.

Was rather shocking to say the least. The local courtroom was packed with a couple hundred observers and it's a small miracle no one was wounded.

The trial resumed the next day, the 2 defendants were found guilty, they were guilty and acted heinously during the trial bragging of their crimes.

And the mother of the victim, the 60 year old shootist...
She was charged with attempted murder BUT THE LOCAL GRAND JURY REFUSED TO INDICT HER. She never faced tral, served no jail time, and was treated rather heroically by our Southern West Virginia community.

This is what is important. I have no idea what the outcome of this Manafort will be. The truth is that no one can be totally sure, and there is an unspoken reason for this.

The most important factor isn't the mouthy Judge. Nor is it the Prosecution's case, strategy, witnesses, nor competency. Its not the evidence either. These things are merely secondary.

The most important factor happened on the first day of this trial, the opening Act. Jury selection.

The most important factor in this trial is whether or not there's a Deplorable on the jury.

I am going to say this next part again once again on this message board. I have stated it before, but I believe it bears repeating. It is my opinion that my fellow Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, and decent Americans everywhere STILL do not understand the breadth and depth of the depravity of Republicans, the Republican party, or the outrageous propaganda Deplorables consume to feed their addiction

THERE IS NO BOTTOM. THERE NEVER WILL BE A BOTTOM. THEY WILL CONTINUE BURNING THIS COUNTRY TO THE GROUND. THINGS WILL GET WORSE, MUCH WORSE HERE, BEFORE THEY GET BETTER.

My personal belief is that there isn't one Deplorable who would ever vote to convict Manafort of anything. None.

I wish I saw it all differently, but I don't.

Litman is a regular legal analyst on that network. He has some pretty solid credentials: Former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, taught at Berkeley Law School, Georgetown Law School and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, was appointed a Distinguished Visitor and Fellow at Princeton, taught at Princeton and Rutgers, now teaches at UCLA and UCSD. He sounded pretty confident that there will be convictions on most if not all counts.

of the right of a juror to nullify.

I would sort of expect it.

Was only on a jury once and that ended in a mistrial when a cop testifying for the prosecution let it slip out the defendant had previous arrests - a big no-no because each trial is unique regardless of defendant's past criminal history. The judge was extremely po'd at the asst DA for not having properly prepped the cop for his testimony.

Anyway, it just sounds like the jury is going through the charges trying to match up exhibits with charges. There's a lot of evidence, so it might take a couple days to sort through everything.

...........I, as a defense attorney, was called back into the courtroom due to jury questions, then turned to my co-counsel afterward going, "Those were all good questions for us," only to have the jury ultimately come back guilty. You can't read anything into the questions being asked.

Just because one of the questions was, "What constitutes reasonable doubt?" doesn't mean the jury is likely to find reasonable doubt. There might just be one or two jurors who think, for example, that you can't convict unless you have video footage of the person committing the crime, or a signed confession, or some ridiculous standard like that. That question just clarifies their direction. ANY trial where there is no video footage of the crime being committed, you could argue, there is at least SOME reasonable doubt. But that's not the standard.

Here's something else to consider: maybe they're only asking about reasonable doubt because they have reasonable doubt as to ONLY ONE of the 18 counts. Or just a handful. There are lots of times when juries convict on the most serious charge, but then decide to take pity on the defendant and vote to acquit on some of the less serious counts. Maybe they've already decided Manafort is guilty on a certain number of charges (probably the ones where the documentation is air-tight), but they're just considering the remaining ones.

As I said before, you can't read anything into the questions juries ask.