Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Various reasons can exist to rest your defense without presenting any evidence:
1. You believe that the prosecution's case is weak. After all, the criminal standard is that guilt must be show 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Note that it is not 'beyond all doubt', but a reasonable doubt.
This tactic is heavily reliant upon the defense attorney in making the closing argument. Note that the defense actually makes the closing argument first, then the prosecution. For the sentencing (if such there is) it is reversed: prosecution first, defense last.
2. Sometimes it is better to rest and not call any witnesses. For instance, there would be a danger in presenting defense witnesses (of course, subject to cross-examination) if you (defense) do not plan to call to the stand the defendant. The defendant is not under any obligation, of course, to testify. But the jury always makes a mental note of such, especially if other defense witnesses are called. Better to call no witnesses, than witnesses but not the defendant.
3. Plea deal. I have said previously that Mr. Manafort may be willing to 'flip' once he sees the prosecutors case.
Of course, reaching a deal after the state rests its case is rather unusual. Mainly, for the 'little people', if a defendant rejects the district attorney's plea bargain and demands a trial, and the district attorney introduces damning evidence to the jury and then rests, in 99 cases out of 100, if said defendant were to go up to the district attorney and say "hey, you know that plea bargain you offered me prior to trial? I hereby accept it". Sorry, but once you put the state to the expense and trouble of a trial, plea bargains are off the table.
This case may be that one out of one hundred.
4. You expect a guilty verdict, but believe you have excellent grounds for an appeal, and of having the conviction overturned.
From my reading of the proceedings, this is a distinct possibility. The judge seems to have made some strange rulings, and said some rather inappropriate things in front of the jury.
5. Related to 4: move for a mistrial, including for jury misconduct.
It is speculated among some court observers that the issue of misconduct by a juror became an issue during the trial, which would explain the rather lengthy 'in chambers' meeting.
In this day of widespread usage of cell phones, I would not be surprised if a juror managed to sneak in a cell phone so they could 'tweet' or whatever during breaks. Of course, juror misconduct may involve numerous issues, such as talking to a witness during a break, or to another juror.
Maybe you are being to hard on them - we got an admission that paying a bunch of Brits to write a fake dossier & shop it around the US Media "is a crime". That's progress.
"Getting material help from a foreign country is in fact a crime. Period."
Paying for it is not. Getting it for FREE is. Sorry if that wasnt clear. I know this is such a hard topic for you folks. Let me help clarify it for you since you seem unable to understand or research this.
Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.
Feel free to look up each of those usc's and read them. Im not going to do ALL the work for you.
As York writes, Starr indicted/obtained convictions of 15 people that were connected to Clintons. Mueller has 4. Some of the crimes of Clinton-connected people convicted by Starr actually were related to Whitewater - the matter he was charged with investigating. Mueller has yet to find anyone to convict for collusion.
Mueller is operating in the classic Stalinesque "you give me the person, I will find a crime" mode. US system of justice works on investigating known crimes. Not investigating people, and trying to find crimes to charge them with. That's an authoritarian state model. Never thought we'd be getting to that point here.
He is? The investigation is about whether or not the Russians interfered with the election. Anybody involved is fair game.
The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including an investigation of any possible links and/or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." The scope of the investigation reportedly also includes potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others.[1] Since May 2017, the investigation has been led by a United States Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Mueller's investigation took over several FBI investigations including those involving former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, both of which started before the 2016 presidential election.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...2%80%93present)
Maybe you are being to hard on them - we got an admission that paying a bunch of Brits to write a fake dossier & shop it around the US Media "is a crime". That's progress.
"Getting material help from a foreign country is in fact a crime. Period."
Michael Steele was a respected MI6 agent, he was an expert on Russia for quite some time and has the intelligence inside their country. He was key in bringing down the World Soccer executives, so no it wasn’t just a bunch of brits.
He is? The investigation is about whether or not the Russians interfered with the election.
... and that is why Manafort is on trial for tax evasion that occurred a decade ago. Because that is of course related to "Russians interfering with the election".
No, Mueller had Manafort (and Cohen, and Flynn) and had to find a crime to charge him with.
"Show me the man and I will find the crime." - Lavrenty Beria.
... and that is why Manafort is on trial for tax evasion that occurred a decade ago. Because that is of course related to "Russians interfering with the election".
Quick, what did Manafort DO to earn that money? Ohhh...he made millions putting a Russian stooge into office in another country. Right.
... and that is why Manafort is on trial for tax evasion that occurred a decade ago. Because that is of course related to "Russians interfering with the election".
The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including an investigation of any possible links and/or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."
Various reasons can exist to rest your defense without presenting any evidence:
1. You believe that the prosecution's case is weak. After all, the criminal standard is that guilt must be show 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Note that it is not 'beyond all doubt', but a reasonable doubt.
This tactic is heavily reliant upon the defense attorney in making the closing argument. Note that the defense actually makes the closing argument first, then the prosecution. For the sentencing (if such there is) it is reversed: prosecution first, defense last.
2. Sometimes it is better to rest and not call any witnesses. For instance, there would be a danger in presenting defense witnesses (of course, subject to cross-examination) if you (defense) do not plan to call to the stand the defendant. The defendant is not under any obligation, of course, to testify. But the jury always makes a mental note of such, especially if other defense witnesses are called. Better to call no witnesses, than witnesses but not the defendant.
3. Plea deal. I have said previously that Mr. Manafort may be willing to 'flip' once he sees the prosecutors case.
Of course, reaching a deal after the state rests its case is rather unusual. Mainly, for the 'little people', if a defendant rejects the district attorney's plea bargain and demands a trial, and the district attorney introduces damning evidence to the jury and then rests, in 99 cases out of 100, if said defendant were to go up to the district attorney and say "hey, you know that plea bargain you offered me prior to trial? I hereby accept it". Sorry, but once you put the state to the expense and trouble of a trial, plea bargains are off the table.
This case may be that one out of one hundred.
4. You expect a guilty verdict, but believe you have excellent grounds for an appeal, and of having the conviction overturned.
From my reading of the proceedings, this is a distinct possibility. The judge seems to have made some strange rulings, and said some rather inappropriate things in front of the jury.
5. Related to 4: move for a mistrial, including for jury misconduct.
It is speculated among some court observers that the issue of misconduct by a juror became an issue during the trial, which would explain the rather lengthy 'in chambers' meeting.
In this day of widespread usage of cell phones, I would not be surprised if a juror managed to sneak in a cell phone so they could 'tweet' or whatever during breaks. Of course, juror misconduct may involve numerous issues, such as talking to a witness during a break, or to another juror.
A mistrial would mean a new trial.
Time will tell.
I knew there were a couple of real lawyers around here somewhere.
I'm going to assume you followed this trial pretty well and you certainly know more about the process than I do - IF there is a Mis-Trial over one or more jurors (there are 4 alternates, so I guess the number would have to be at least 5 to kick off the jury.
Good for TeamMueller to go to a 2nd trial?
Good for TeamManafort to go to a 2nd trial?
I'm assuming a different Judge for a 2nd trial - is that correct?
One thing is for sure - "Time will tell - and that time is getting shorter.
Judge TS Ellis III said that closing arguments in the case will begin at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, and jurors will be given instructions in the case after that.
The jurors were sent home at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, after they see the defense formally rested its case.
The lawyers will discuss on Tuesday afternoon what instructions jurors will receive. Those are wonky, but important, as they will shape how jurors debate the charges of which Mr Manafort is accused.
No, he isn't. Michael Steele is a former head of RNC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
