General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe jury was allowed to mingle with spectators and others in elevators and hallways.
What the flying freaking double hockey sticks??
[link:https://screenshots.firefox.com/go77AMVCkdDdJPFS/twitter.com|
Ken Dilanian
?Verified account @KenDilanianNBC
Replying to @BenjySarlin
The jury not only wasnt sequesteredjurors mingled freely in the courthouse elevators, cafeteria and hallways with reporters and spectators. Ive never seen anything like it.
leftieNanner
(15,056 posts)there is nothing the prosecution can do about it! Double jeopardy, you know. Can't try a guy twice for the same crime.
If this wasn't so serious, it would be comical. In a toxic and evil way, of course.
Sneederbunk
(14,275 posts)leftieNanner
(15,056 posts)I believe that they will find him guilty on some of the 18 charges.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)People on both sides sure they're right, and saying they won't change their minds. It would still be very early to declare a jury deadlocked. Especially if it's only one or two insisting Manafort should be found innocent.
at140
(6,110 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)counts in the indictment, it seems unlikely the jury would hang on all of them.
at140
(6,110 posts)Results in prison terms for all the guilty counts!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)it's up to the judge; but in an important case, it should take a few days at least. And it's not then an automatic new trial; it's up to the prosecution whether they think it's worth trying again.
FSogol
(45,431 posts)to it now. They probably spent Thursday and Friday looking at pictures of the ostrich jacket.
He's going to be guilty on most of the counts, imo.
louis c
(8,652 posts)The first 5 charges of tax fraud are a slam dunk. He earned the money overseas, he spent the money through foreign bank transfers, he failed to declare $16 million of that income, he instructed his banks and Gates to hide the income and he signed the fraudulent tax returns. Jesus, you don't need to be a genius to figure that out.
There may be more difficulty on the bank fraud and other charges. That may take more time to decipher for laymen. We may get some hung decisions on the remaining charges, but there will be no unanimous verdict of not guilty on any charge.
Older Than I Look
(95 posts)leftieNanner
(15,056 posts)I was responding to the concept that the prosecutors could complain about the judge's behavior etc. in the Virginia trial and retry the case if Manafort gets off. That can't happen.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)have any impact on how he conducted this trial?
If a crazy verdict comes out, there would seem to be grounds for at least a new and properly held trial.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)former9thward
(31,923 posts)The September trial is federal charges.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)former9thward
(31,923 posts)He does not.
2) None of the things Manafort has been accused of are state crimes. States can't file charges about anything federal. So far there has been no investigation of Manafort by any state. If there was it would have been leaked instantly.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)former9thward
(31,923 posts)The whole OP is about Manafort and his federal charges. You bring in Cohen -- who has not even been charged -- and a speculative article about him. He is not suspected of breaking the type of laws Manafort was charged with. Also the law about getting around New York's Double Jeopardy law would be prohibited for use against Cohen because it would ex post facto.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Federal government. The article basically refutes everything you say, and theres plenty more out there, so.... I know what I believe. Mueller has always known pardons would be on the table, and hes been planning accordingly.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Do you know any date about the state charges that have been mentioned?
former9thward
(31,923 posts)These investigations are not secret. If they have been going on we would know about it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)As federal and state prosecutors are sharing all this info and coordinating the best way to use it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/4/18/17252554/trump-cohen-new-york-state-laws
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)they're allowed to mingle, they wear their badges so lawyers know to shut up in the halls etc and not talk about the case. That's the way it was when I was on jury duty.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)If this reporter has "never seen anything like it", it is likely he has never seen the inside of a trial court House...expect many many reporters reporting on...nothing...the waiting must be excruciating for folks paid to write.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)much less inclined to rely on anything he says.
The people going crazy over sequestration apparently have not considered, or don't care, what a huge imposition that is. Already jurors, many of whom are professionals, are getting way behind in their work after missing two weeks, and if there are any hourly employees, they may be giving up a lot of pay as well. If they are further imposed upon with sequestration, that means no child care, no pet care, no grocery shopping, etc. Not everyone is partnered, and particularly for people who are single with children or pets or house care responsibilities, this is very difficult to coordinate for a two week or longer period.
The judge already told the jurors not to discuss the case and not to research it online or watch TV shows about it, etc. These are intelligent people who are capable of controlling themselves.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)They get off. That's the way it is in California anyway. You can't get off because of work. You just get a delay in your jury service. But other kinds of responsibilities you have to either deal with or not sit on the jury.
In my opinion, this jury should have been sequestered.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)to Alexandria. It is VERY difficult to get excused from jury duty unless the attorneys decide based on your responses to questions that they don't want you on the jury. And the kinds of responsibilities I talked about are probably shared by more than half of the population, so there is no way the system is going to excuse or defer people on those bases. If I had said I couldn't serve because I have to get home to feed and give meds to my pets, I would have been laughed out of the room.
Please read the Slate article I posted.
And here is a link to the Eastern District jury rules:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/jury/jury-service.htm
gopiscrap
(23,725 posts)just declare if you put me on this jury I will automatically vote not guilty
at140
(6,110 posts)That was not the question asked by lawyers to you. You are required to limit your answers to questions asked, nothing more, nothing less.
tblue37
(65,212 posts)gas station Kwik Shop. The prosecutor asked if we would be influenced by the fact that the defendant was very young. I asked how young he was, and that was that.
MichMan
(11,864 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)I don't.
He's doing the system a favor. Civic duty means putting selfishness aside.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)Talking about poor Manafort, sad.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)It's normal.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)One that the POTUS commented on in the media?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I have no idea what you expect.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)....a case big enough that the POTUS commented on it, and most likely VERY intentionally.
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)called by NBC "an attempt to taint the jury pool"
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)Prepare yourselves, the fix is in.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)at140
(6,110 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)Bonheur
(31 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 19, 2018, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)
No one will go through the scrutiny of being a lone hold out for political reasons. I have faith that the jurors will act in a professional manner, to the best of their ability.
I have found Trumpters to be loud, but cowards. They don't want to be singled out and they are not good at being challenged in their positions. If a Trumpster tries to stand, alone, against 11 jurors in this spotlight, the chance of that happening is one in a million.
Bonheur
(31 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)but I'll guess we get 5 to 10 counts of guilty and hung on the rest.
That's OK for our side.
louis c
(8,652 posts)The 5 Tax Counts will be guilty. No question about it. There may be some "hungs" in the remaining bank fraud charges, but acquitted on all charges, a unanimous not guilty on everything is not going to happen.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)"The current thinking is that isolating a jury causes more problems than it solves. For one, it can increase juror dropouts. Those with family responsibilities can't stomach more than a few nights away from home, and they often end up leaving midcase due to "personal circumstances." The departures, in turn, increase the likelihood of a mistrial. And there are serious concerns that the eagerness of jurors to return home could compel them to deliberate hastily.
When a judge does decide to sequester a jury, it's often because there's a critical piece of inadmissible material being discussed in the pressfor example, a suppressed confession. Or there may be the threat of harassment from reporters, protesters, or the defendant's criminal associates. Less frequent nowadays is a sequestration based solely on the high-profile nature of a case; such reasoning became less popular after the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial, which featured a long sequestration that some legal observers regarded as counterproductive. In the Muhammad case, the fact that the trial is not being televised probably helped the judge decide against sequestration. When the jurors return home at night, under strict instructions not to view or read press accounts of the trial, it's obviously easier without the day's testimony plastered all over the TV."
(snip)
TomSlick
(11,083 posts)the jurors will, necessarily, ride the same elevators, walk the same halls, eat at the same place, etc. as the general public.
Jurors are instructed that if someone tries to talk to them about the case they are to refuse and report. Lawyers learn to watch for juror badges and stop talking if a juror is nearby.
Sequestered juries are really rare. We have to trust juries to do their duty. In my experience, jurors take their responsibility very seriously. I've tried enough jury trials to have a great deal of faith in juries.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)and they don't use a cafeteria in the main part of the building. It doesn't stop contact in the town, of course, but it gives a basic separation. I'd have thought most courthouses were purpose-built in the USA by now, and they should have been designed for this.
TomSlick
(11,083 posts)There is a lot more formality in UK courts - what with the gowns and wigs, bowing to the judge, etc. The fact that jurors are not strictly segregated from the public is probably a history of the more informal nature of US Courts.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)they don't have extensive knowledge about what they are reporting on.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)biased Trump voter; they'll be very biased in favor of Manafort. Heck, Manafort could have taken the stand, fully confessed, and that very biased Trump supporting juror would still vote for acquittal.
at140
(6,110 posts)Majority of jury vote should suffice,,, guiltyor not guilty.
JMHO..
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)That's exactly how innocent people go to jail or worse...
louis c
(8,652 posts)Are you sure you belong here? You would be OK taking away a person's freedom for the rest of his or her life on a 7 to 5 vote of a jury?
That's Draconian ultra conservative stuff.
at140
(6,110 posts)If just ONE juror out of 12 holds out for not guilty then Manafort is acquitted of all 18 charges?
Requiring 12 out of 12 to vote one way is not true justice in all cases. May be 10/12 should be enough. We do not require 100% voting on anything in congress. Even for the most serious issues the senate requires only 2/3 votes to pass anything.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 19, 2018, 09:20 PM - Edit history (1)
Look, just use your common sense. If the criteria for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, the fact that a juror or 2 have that kind of doubt means there is reasonable doubt in any case. Remember, one juror can hang a jury and the defendant can be retried if one or 2 or 8 jurors are not convinced.
Perhaps the prosecution has over charged a defendant. They can then reduce the charges and either get a plea or retry to the lesser charges. This country has more prisoners than any other country in the world, per capita. It's not like we're too lenient.
In civil cases, it's a "proponderous of evidence" criteria. That means if more evidence is on one side than another, you can base your decision by that criteria. Also, in almost every state, a majority of the jury is all you need for a decision.
and the Manafort trial is going just fine. There are 18 charges, and 13 of them are very complicated. The jurors will be out until Thursday or Friday, but in the end, they will convict on most, if not all, of the charges. Relax
dflprincess
(28,070 posts)it's a hung jury and a mistrial so he could be tried again.
at140
(6,110 posts)in November. Let us hope the jury reaches a guilty verdict next week on majority of counts.
moondust
(19,956 posts)Why wouldn't some "spectators" from the mob or Kremlin try to read the jurors and discreetly offer a hefty bribe or two for a "not guilty" vote? All they would need is one juror and it would benefit the whole gang including TheRump. Yuuge ROI.
Renew Deal
(81,842 posts)And what do they mean by mingle? Were they talking or occupying the same space?
tblue37
(65,212 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)The rule is no discussion of the case
trueblue2007
(17,187 posts)dflprincess
(28,070 posts)so they could be threatened or bribed.
samir.g
(835 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)People are going to be with other people.
And they have to get to the jury room somehow. Mostly likely through the halls and corridors and of the courthouse.