president before process. Good news is they can retry him on the 10. Good info for the next jury selection. Hey, according to don all the FBI people who investigate him have to be gop or its not fair...not sure where that standard came up but we should all be so lucky to have a jury of our cohorts.

Let us be calm.

Manafort was found/jury decision on 8 counts of criminal actions.

10 matters were undecided. If and when he goes to jail on 1, 2, 6, 8... convictions, this keeps him off the streets.
Imagine his emotions/his wife's, his kid's. I sleep well seeing him punished about his horrible Ukrainian dealings, his arrogance, his ill-gotten wealth, his manipulations, and lying.

This is good for the USA. Do not paint it as a loss.

Could be a lot worse. And perhaps the sense she does have about the guilt even she could not ignore will be heard by some of her peers. Well, a few of them.

And now I move on to the pardoning discussion. It never ends.

Sitting alone, I actually yelled out loud when I read it - "What the fuck!" What a week it has been.

I'm fucking sick.

She was the holdout

She was not the holdout. Seems she actually helped others with the evidence to help get their Guilty vote. Though she said at the beginning she wanted Manafort to be Not Guilty.

They said he took a lot of notes but really noticed him shaking his head during the part where Gates was testifying. He wasn't buying Gates as a credible person, especially after they said he stole money from Manafort.

'The only reason he was on trial is because they went after Trump'

The man was on trial because he was accused of committing crimes

I believe she meant that if they had found Manafort guilty of all counts then she would be in fear of retribution. Since the majority of the counts ended in 'mistrial' findings she felt brave enough to claim her 15 minutes of FOX fame. How much money do you think she'll receive in the mail now? Of course she'll be branded a "great patriot" for her courageous stand against the "deep state".

That's my take on it anyway.

She did say "any" other way, which would encompass both acquittal and being guilty or more or even all charges

Or will Trump/GOP still yell fake news?

...Fuck Her, I'll Take The Eight, Now On To New York State Crimes.

asking for a friend?

But looked at the evidence cold. She did not violate her oath. Just as some of the justice department people who might hate Clinton but did not push to indict when they saw no crime.

Because they were investigating Trump. Actually low information voters: Manafort had to resign well before the election because of his own dirty dealings.

I realize there's little chance of him being retried on these 10 counts, but the next prosecution will learn and be more careful before the jury is selected in his DC trial.

Especially now that they've seen where the weaknesses of their witnesses and the judge's interference is most likely to trip them up in the eyes of the jury.

But I'm not sure what the point would be, except a moral victory. In practical terms, whatever he gets sentenced to here, and whatever he gets sentenced to after the DC case is most likely to exceed the remainder of his expected natural life.

Good reason to have vetted professional jurors that hopefully aren't corrupted.

... comes to a different conclusion than their fellow jurors doesn't make them "corrupt".

Biased would have been more accurate. They went in not wanting Manafort to be guilty, which isn't something a juror is supposed to be predisposed about.

Still, they managed to put that aside and find him guilty on 8 of the charges. That had to be an effort on the part of the other jurors to persuade them on.

... that any persuasion was necessary. It's equally possible that juror didn't hesitate to vote 'guilty' on the other eight counts.

There is no such thing as an unbiased juror. We all have biases in all kinds of circumstances. The job of a juror is to base their verdict on the evidence, and not on their natural biases or preconceived notions.

I agree we all have biases, but one isn't supposed to serve on a jury if they don't want the defendant to be guilty. It's usually one of the first questions during vetting, and goes against subsequent instructions from the judge once seated. Skepticism is one thing, and is good, but an actual desire is a different matter.

Still, this person found them guilty on 8 of the charges, which's shows they were mailable. It's just odd how similar several of the charges they were the hold out on were extremely similar to ones they were found guilty on. Which makes me question if someone else on the jury was able to persuade them by some means on the ones they convicted on.

I'm speculating purely based on my previous experience on juries.

... if they don't want the defendant to be guilty."

So only jurors who want the defendant to be guilty should serve? What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

The duty of a juror is to come to a verdict based on the evidence presented - and in judging these particular jurors, you seem to be making-up your own evidence.

You assume that the juror who was a hold-out on the 10 charges was malleable, and had to be persuaded on the other 8 counts. How do you know that juror wasn't fully on-board when it came to guilt on the 8 counts from the beginning, but - for whatever reason - was not convinced of guilt on the other 10?

For all anyone knows, the hold-out could be a Trump-hating liberal who based their 'not guilty' votes on their own strict interpretation of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

As for jurors "not wanting the defendant to be guilty", that's a normal human reaction, and is probably a widespread emotion among jurors. Being able to find a defendant not guilty means having saved an innocent person from prison - having to put someone in prison is a much more daunting proposition, and a responsibility most people would rather not ever have to deal with.

perhaps even before the jury selection began.

And this belief is based on what facts?

this should have been a slam dunk for the prosecution; at least 17 other jurors thought so too. Paula Duncan, an ardent drumpf supporter, appears to be the spoiler of the jury pool; it is still early with this revelation and hopefully time will tell and be more precise.

... "appears to be the spoiler of the jury pool"? Well, there's no arguing with hard evidence like that, is there?

Because one juror comes to a different conclusion than the rest of the jury doesn't make them a "spoiler" of anything.

There's no such thing as a "slam dunk", especially in a jury trial.

... is pretty much what this entire discussion thread is all about.

Duncan voted to convict on all 18 counts, another juror was the holdout on the 10 mistrial counts.

Thanks for your comment and correction.

That's my guess here. The defense accepted all the jurors without question. Overall the process was over in an extremely short period of time.

My best guess is they lied at some point during selection. Which happens a lot. That is if this person is actually the hold out and isn't just lying.

This could have been used by the prosecution if they'd not already earned the convictions they did. As it is, I seriously doubt they'll care.

So any juror who doesn't deliver the verdict that you want is "un-American"?

That sounds like RWNJ bullshit right there - just sayin' is all.

There *should* be a Trump supporter on his juries - that's only fair to get a reasonable representation, just like it's unfair if there are no people of color on a jury for a trial of a person of color. It's up to the lawyers during voir dire to balance the jury. If the person in the jury pool is wearing a MAGA hat and screams that they will support DT no matter what despite being instructed to lay aside preconceptions, it's the lawyers' job to determine they are biased and not seat them.

I know it's hard to think about, but I remember when I did jury duty, there was a list of questions we had to answer to the court, and that is the place where counsel can get an idea of the bias of the potential juror. I'm pretty sure we were sworn in to answer truthfully.

The juror who was on Fox was a Trump supporter.

If you look at the 18 charges, it splits out pretty definitively. The 8 convictions were all on bank fraud charges. The rest were conspiracy to commit fraud and some lesser charges, those were "no verdict." I think one or two fraud charges were also "no verdict."

So the conspiracy charges aren't so cut and dried, and it's harder to get juries to agree on those.

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)

She sounded like she got her daily Faux Noise fixes every night after getting home.

Someone should have smoked this one out!

I think some of you are jumping to a conclusion she is talking about herself as the hold out on the 10 charges. It sounds to me she’s talking about another juror.

to one juror ... could be another, could be her

They *always* embellish their story to make it sound better

The part about the prosecutors napping?

She is fucking lying

She is an attention-seeking type.

I'm a bit skeptical.

Do you reckon one might, I don't know, LIE to do so?

He wouldn't tolerate attorneys dozing off in his courtroom

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/manafort-judge-to-prosecutor-there-s-tears-in-your-eyes

She says there was one holdout. She don't say who

I'm saying it was her. You think she would call out another juror?

...his lunatic fan KKKlub are willing to stand by the pig come hell or high water.

They need to be excluded from juries...but unfortunately, we can’t do that. But we CAN expose these treasonous enablers for the shit for brains they really are.

Did the witch commit perjury during the juror selection process? Sounds like she may have.

Lock her up.

Make an example of her.

So much so, that she left a MAGA hat in her car each day.
Maybe the defense knew about this?

if they were able to get a guilty verdict on nearly half of the charges and none of them were acquittals - even with a Trump supporter in the mix.

Had I known she was on the jury I would have had a nervous breakdown during the trial

This lunacy called "Conservatism" has so brainwashed party over country into so many minds that once good citizens have given up reason for treason!

She held back convictions on 10 of the charges. She's likely feeling pretty good about herself right now. But remember, the wheels of justice are still turning. They turn too slow at times for most, but I'm sure the prosecutors learned from this and will start to close the loopholes as best they can.

I'd be willing to bet her facebook page is full of magat and rwnj crap. The prosecution would only need to look there to know she wasn't suitable.

is probably barred from looking into jurors facebook pages. Still if they did look as long as they didn't say anything no one would know.

I don't see why looking at it would be prohibited. There are several firms that have developed software that does broad searches of social media, aggregates and organizes the data and is searchable for terms and topics. Below is a description of what one firm offers. It doesn't mention juror selection but it's an obvious application.

Social Evidence, LLC develops a cloud-based application for attorneys and legal professionals that provides support in the collection, organization, and analysis of the social media history of clients, witnesses, experts, prospective clients, and other parties. Its platform provides tools to assist legal professionals to search, find, and use relevant case-related information in a repeatable, admissible, and legally-defensible format.

She would have been seated on the case as the article states, but she may not have had a vote. That would explain why she indicates that one juror held out instead of herself.

She was probably rooting from the sidelines and couldn't wait for her big moment on Fox. Actual jurors may not want to go public. I wouldn't.

or sit in during deliberations.

that's the America we live in today. Political bias affects many things in our lives, including our relationships with family, friends, neighbors and business associates.

Send your thank you notes to the Brainwash Editor at Faux News, Limbaugh, et al.......

All you need is one person of conviction to turn the tide of any situation. Great lesson that can go either way.

… that Manafort was not guilty on certain counts, they did the right thing by voting the way they did on those counts. The fact that the same juror voted “guilty” on eight other counts contradicts any theory that they were acting out of any political agenda.

Twelve people are exposed to the same facts, they hear the same testimony, they see the same documents. But there is never any guarantee that they will see exactly the same things in exactly the same way, and come to the same conclusions as a result.

There are always going to be Trumpsters on juries. That’s inevitable, and is part of the jury system – and it’s a big part of how that system works to the benefit of justice.

Is anyone here really suggesting that jurors should be chosen or disqualified based on their political affiliation? Does anyone think that justice would have been served had only liberals, Democrats, and/or anti-Trump people been on Manafort’s jury?

Accusations that a hold-out juror is “corrupt”, or someone should be “locked up because she committed perjury during the jury selection process” have absolutely no basis in any known facts. I think we should leave that kind of bullshit to FOX-News.

She *should* have not been on the jury, since anyone familiar enough with the case to be rooting for (or against) Manafort should have been weeded out during voir dire.

However, looks like she followed the judge's instructions to make a verdict based on the evidence, rather than her biases.

She just doesn't want to take the blame so attributes it to an anonymous juror.

I'll bet she herself is the one holdout.

this jury.

I think we can expect to hear about Manafort's attorney's being under investigation for jury tampering along with Manafort. Damn

Link to tweet

I am sure she didn't mention she drives around with a MAGA hat in her back seat. Fucking nut job.

....

And since she's not likely the hold-out (my guess is that someone else on the jury would quickly out her on that, so why bother) she voted to convict Manafort on all counts.

If we couldn't have him convicted on all of the counts, an 11-1 vote is still a good sign.

I continue to think that part of the problem was the judge, given the charges that they did not agree upon, such as the bank loans. One example: During the testimony of one of the bank people, on a fraudulent loan application that was ultimately rejected, Ellis interrupted the witness and said something like 'maybe you could move on to a loan that the defendant actually received.' The potential inference there was that lying about that loan wasn't all that big a deal, if it was at all. During the instructions to the jury, he noted that his editorial comments weren't evidence, but it was a bell that can't really be un-rung.

He also prevented the prosecutors from getting testimony on several of their exhibits, although he did allow them to enter them into evidence without much description. (The jury asked for clarification on something related to the documents and Ellis told them to rely on their memories.)

I guess the holdout bought the defense's argument that because Calk was crooked too, he knew that Manafort was lying on the loan application, and thus it wasn't a crime. That sounded kind of stupid when I read about it, but you never know.

When one ignoramus can keep justice from being served!

The trumpers who live in fantasy land.

I mean okay, it probably was a Trump supporter (they might as well be anyway over there) but they all think this is a witch hunt too and want us to leave the Russians and Pootie Poot alone.

… not the holdout on the other 10 charges. There are other jurors. Someone would call her out... however, I assume the defense considered her a prime holdout possibility; they must be really disappointed.

But, I give her credit for doing her civic duty properly. She put aside her feelings and followed the evidence