General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJudge Ellis begins court with mea culpa for outburst over expert
Manafort prosecutors get what they wanted:
Judge Ellis tells the jury he was wrong in criticizing prosecutors yesterday for having a witnesses, an IRS agent, in the room to hear other witness testimony.
Put aside any criticism. I was probably wrong in that," Ellis said
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/08/09/paul-manafort-trial-day-8-live-coverage/?utm_term=.99e891742caa
Link to tweet

Greybnk48
(10,496 posts)on our hands, rolling in the spotlight like a dog on a stinky spot.
TheBlackAdder
(29,415 posts).
He does it to make better attorneys out of them.
.
Ponietz
(3,465 posts)Call them by their first name early on, that changes the dynamic pretty quickly.
Towlie
(5,488 posts)Judge T. S. Ellis III was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Salon says:
In May, Ellis reprimanded Mueller's prosecutors by declaring that "you dont really care about Mr. Manaforts bank fraud. You really care about getting information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr Trump and lead to his prosecution or impeachment," according to The Guardian. The judge later added, "We dont want anyone in this country with unfettered power. Its unlikely youre going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants. The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power."
erronis
(18,437 posts)The judge later added, "We dont want anyone in this country with unfettered power. Its unlikely youre going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants. The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power."
Since when does a judge get away with determining what "the American people" want? S/he is supposed to be applying the rule of the law and judgments which are above popularity contests.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)As long as he follows the law and ethics guidelines.
emulatorloo
(45,728 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142129990
Stallion
(6,621 posts)....if it is the type of evidence that an expert in his field of expertise would normally rely upon to form his opinion.
More_Cowbell
(2,213 posts)The attorneys made their usual motion to exclude all witnesses (so they wouldn't be in the courtroom until it was their turn to testify, and wouldn't hear anything else that had gone on) but excepted this FBI agent. The judge asked the defense attorney, who agreed.
Then, as usual, when the agent was on the witness stand, he was asked if he'd been in the courtroom. When he said "yes," the judge blew up, forgetting that he'd signed off on it.
Stallion
(6,621 posts)there has to be an exception to "the Rule"-RCP 615-which is otherwise mandatory. The exception for him to stay in the courtroom in this case was so he could base his expert testimony on the facts elicited from other witnesses on which his opinion might rely.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_615
Sanity Claws
(22,142 posts)This asshile was definitely wrong and his inability to admit it shows he cares more about himself than justice. Get him out of the courtroom! Impeach the old fucker.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)times says he's actually been top notch intellectually and judicially in spite of harassing the attorneys. He's been prone to going after prosecutors especially for decades, but it did not affect his rulings.
It's possible he's corrupted, but it's also possible he's gotten carried away and is realizing he needs to pull it in. Every adjective is being scrutinized.
Lol. On O'Donnell, someone pointed out that the prosecutor he accused of crying in court once went up against the Bonanno crime family and continued his prosecution with round-the-clock protection while they tried to kill him.
deurbano
(2,961 posts)big memory lapse, so I wonder if that "brilliance" is starting to fade.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)He reportedly likes attention, but this degree of scrutiny should cause him to be less indulgent and more careful. And if he isn't...?
onit2day
(1,201 posts)Nitram
(25,219 posts)Fullduplexxx
(8,436 posts)honest.abe
(9,238 posts)Its very unfortunate as this case is very important.
Princess Turandot
(4,836 posts)reminded Ellis that he had given them permission to do what they did vis a vis the tax expert on the first day of the trial, the judge blew up at him. He kind of threatened him, telling him to keep in mind that as a prosecutor in that district, he could well appear in his courtroom again.
I'm glad that they filed a complaint.
sprinkleeninow
(20,720 posts)You were undoubtedly wrong in that. Sheesh.

💙🇺🇸🌊
Brother Buzz
(38,257 posts)dark glasses and trench coats gave him that big sack of money.
erronis
(18,437 posts)Brother Buzz
(38,257 posts)No-Cut-Contract.
UTUSN
(73,622 posts)And it's been posted many times by his apologists that his comments against the prosecution are "outside of the jury's hearing" but there have been multiple incidents when he has carried on in front of the jury.
And we have plenty of our legalistic pundits here justifying him on the basis that his rulings have been "correct."
I'm no lawyer and have no pretense about special insight, am not focused on legalisms, just on the *intangibles* of behavior and emotion and how whimsical many outcomes can be.
I just hope that the incontrovertible parts of the evidence overwhelm this f***ing judge's despicable behavior.