HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The four questions the Ma... » Reply #9

Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 17, 2018, 07:49 AM

9. That's not how I saw it. Glass half full or half empty?

I saw it as just clarifying the rule. Although it's the case that Manafort set up his wife as owner, so he'd be less than 50% owner technically, the jury nonetheless considers that he owned less than 50% of the company. If he owned less than 50%, he didn't have control of the account, so those laws didn't apply to him. It could be that the jury was assuming the laws didn't apply to Manafort, or maybe one juror was looking for justification for thinking that.

If they can't have a rundown of evidence matched to charges, they might have to go through witness testimony, looking for references to evidence, and that could take a while. Although there weren't many witnesses, there were probably a lot of evidentiary documents. If there are a couple of not too bright jurors, they won't be able to understand this case. This is really complicated stuff, and the fraud system is complicated & confusing.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.