Manafort trial update: judge just banned the word "oligarch" from being used

[Mrs. Overall]

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman

Zoe Tillman (Buzzfeed)
?@ZoeTillman

Judge is taking a quick recess in Manafort's trial. A few updates:

- Before the jury came in, the judge admonished the lawyers not to use the term "oligarch" to describe wealthy Ukrainians who allegedly paid for Manafort's work. Has "pejorative" meaning, he said

- More on "oligarch" — judge said the term implied Manafort was being paid by criminals, and there wouldn't be evidence about that. Judge: Case will not be tried that "he associated with despicable people, and therefore he is despicable. That's not the American way."

[madaboutharry]

1. I think the judge is doing what he can

to remove issues ripe for appeal. The term oligarchs does have a perjorative inference and could give rise to a claim of an “unfair trial.”

[empedocles]

6. hmmmm

The judges trial rule, and replacement terms for 'oligarch', might give even more 'inference' to jurors, while reducing appeal material.

[Jersey Devil]

9. Prosecutors pointed out that Manafort himself and his team referred to them as "oligarchs"

Under those circumstance I think it should be permitted.

[chowder66]

12. I agree. nt

[OneBro]

35. The judge called out both sides for using the term.

Out of the jury’s earshot, [the Judge] also criticized both sides for using the word “oligarch,” saying it had negative connotations and could give jurors the impression Manafort was “consorting and being paid by people who are criminals.”

More at Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/prosecutors-at-manafort-trial-offer-evidence-of-apparently-fake-invoices-idUSKBN1KM3QE

[EffieBlack]

22. He's right.

The people who paid Mannafort can be described without using the word "oligarch" which does have a very negative implications.

[lamp_shade]

2. Thanks for the link.

[ProudLib72]

3. Update: The word "spade" can no longer be used. One must say "shovel" from now on.

This is a dangerous move. Banning certain terms is double plus ungood.

[OnDoutside]

16. OR if I put 3 shovels against the wall and told you to take your pick ?

The old ones are the best !

[ProudLib72]

18. I don't like having to pick

It just adze to the complexity.

[Mendocino]

20. The judge has an

axe to grind.

[EffieBlack]

23. "Oligarch" has a very specific, negative meaning that shouldn't be used unless

a whole 'nother area of proof is explored - i.e., what is an oligarch, do the persons so described actually fit the description, etc. It's not worth the trouble and it opens up too many possibilities of reversible error.

It's like describing a person as a "wealthy criminal" without any evidence that they are - and trying to prove they are is far outside the scope of the issues being tried in the case. Whether these people are oligarchs or wealthy criminals is irrelevant to the case and has nothing to do with whether Mannafort broke the law.

Judges ban terms all the time - and this judge was smart to exclude this one. It adds nothing to the case and gives rise to too many problems.

[ProudLib72]

24. I understand why the judge banned the term

And I agree it makes legal sense to keep the trial above board, focused only on Manafort's tax evasion. At the same time, I feel calling these associates "wealthy businessmen" is akin to the mob calling themselves "legitimate businessmen". What else should we call Yanukovych? The ousted leader of the Ukraine? Was he ousted for being a "wealthy businessman"? Look, Effie, this is exactly why I do not have the stomach to be a lawyer. Nor would I make a very good juror in this trial.

[EffieBlack]

25. "Wealthy" is an objective fact - they are wealthy. Mobsters aren't "legitimate"

The terms are different.

These ARE wealthy businessmen and that term holds no bias or value judgment. It's just a fact. To get into whether they are corrupt or not requires an entirely separate lane of proof that is not appropriate for this trial - it doesn't matter whether they are corrupt or not since that is completely irrelevant to the issue of Manafort's guilt or innocence.

It may seem like mere semantics or legal games, but terminology is very important in these cases. The rules of evidence are very clear that the prejudicial value of evidence must be weighed against its probative value and if the former substantially outweighs the latter, it is inadmissible. The same goes for terminology used. In this instance, the probative value of calling these people oligarchs is very small while the prejudicial value is very high since whether they are criminals does very little to prove whether Manafort violated the law in his dealings with them while the term is highly prejudicial.

[ProudLib72]

32. Question

Given that the judge is very wary of influencing the jurors, could this sort of thing be used to call for a mistrial? If you look at what happened, it seems the prosecution was intentionally trying to plant that term in the jurors' minds.

[EffieBlack]

34. It probably wouldn't be grounds for a mistrial, but it could be grounds for reversal on appeal if it

was continually used throughout the trial and there were other aspects of the trial that were considered to be highly prejudicial against the defendant.

[LakeArenal]

4. Lipstick on a pig.

[honest.abe]

5. Do we know anything about this judge?

Does he have a past performance that might signal his leanings?

[rusty fender]

15. George W. Bush appointee

About a month back he admonished the prosecution that they were only prosecuting Manafort in order to get Donald Dumbass.

He also ordered that Manafort be jailed until trial after Manafort tampered with witnesses.

The judge is a conservative, but he is also a no nonsense type.

[honest.abe]

19. Sounds ok I suppose.

Its amazing that we now tend to consider Bush appointees reasonable.

[rusty fender]

21. I know!

Now we know that a Traitor Tot appointee can be so much worse

[PoliticAverse]

27. He leans to no-nonsense quick trials. n/t

[CanonRay]

7. Let's use Rich assholes instead!

[Recursion]

8. Honestly that's probably the right decision

"Oligarch" is too prejudicial to use without putting the facts into evidence.

[EffieBlack]

26. Exactly

And whether they are "oligarchs" is irrelevant to the issues in the case.

[Corvo Bianco]

10. I don't like this at all....

So Judge, what if he is paid dirty laundered money by these "despicable people", is he not then a criminal?

I'm worried our justice system has bathed in the cool aid and they've lost the gumption to say crimes are a real thing anymore.

[EffieBlack]

36. He's not charged with being paid with dirty money, so that's irrelevant

It's the same reason we don't allow, with some exceptions, evidence of other bad acts into trials.

For example, if you're charged with tax evasion - i.e., not paying your taxes - evidence about whether you habitually use illegal drugs is likely not to be admitted because that evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial nature. Unless there's some reason they're trying to prove that your use of drugs has something directly to do with your tax evasion, there's no reason to introduce it except to prejudice the jury against you by suggesting your drug use makes you a bad person.

In this instance, the prosecution is not trying to tie in the criminal nature of the wealthy business people to anything related to Manafort's tax evasion and other financial crimes, therefore it is not relevant - but, on the other hand, it is highly prejudicial. Given this, the judge rightly excluded it.

[maxsolomon]

11. "Billionaires who acquired monopolistic control over industries

through their association with Vladimir Putin".

Longer, gets the point across.

[nolabels]

13. That is pure B.S.

Dictation of the prosecution's narrative by the sitting judge is not part of the US Justice system in modern times. That is kangaroo court by definition

(snip)
kangaroo court
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Kangaroo Court
[Slang of U.S. origin.] An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands, such as those put on by vigilantes or prison inmates; a proceeding and its leaders who are considered sham, corrupt, and without regard for the law.

The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.

The term is still in common usage by defendants, writers, and scholars critical of a court or a trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has also used it. In in re gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), a case that established that children in juvenile court have the right to due process, the Court reasoned, "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." Associate Justice william o. douglas once wrote, "[W]here police take matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound them until they confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 [1951]).
(snip)
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/kangaroo+court

[PoliticAverse]

31. "Dictation of the prosecution's narrative by the sitting judge is not part of the US Justice system"

Of course it is, they are suppose to ensure a fair trail and that includes preventing the prosecution from
unfair/prejudicial conduct or argument.

BTW the term "Kangaroo Court" is traditionally used to refer to a court that is extremely unfair to the defendant.

[moondust]

14. Check the dictionary, judge.

I checked two dictionaries and neither includes anything "pejorative" including the OED which just says:

oligarchy: noun (plural oligarchies) a small group of people having control of a country or organizaton. A country governed by an oligarchy.

[EffieBlack]

29. If you don't think it's pejorative, why are you concerned about it not being used?

Doesn't the fact that people feel that it says something negative about the people Manafort was dealing with and, by extension, about him, suggest that the term is not as unbiased and non-perjorative as you claim?

If the term truly is not perjorative, what's the problem with not using it but sticking to other descriptions that are clearly less loaded?

[gratuitous]

17. Judges gonna do what they do

In the grand scheme of things, not saying oligarch probably isn't going to matter very much. In one trial, we had a judge rule that the documentary evidence we had gathered from the defendant, including reports and memoranda going back 30 or 40 years had to be cleansed of all "marginalia," which the judge said included the initials of the memo author hand-written at the time the memo was typed and distributed. I became a virtuoso at whiting out all kinds of specks, flecks, sloppy underlines, and other marginalia on hundreds of exhibits.

And we still won the case.

[Turbineguy]

28. Trump is trying to

tamper with the Jury.

[rufus dog]

30. I guess I need to sit in some trials in South Central LA

And see if a judge doesn't allow "gang member" to be used.

[EffieBlack]

37. Yes, you should. You may be surprised.

[John Gruff]

33. The evidence is overwhelming against Manafort

The judge could ban the word “the”, and he’ll still go down.