There was also a hung jury on the four bank fraud charges for his dealings with the Federal Savings Bank in Illinois. The state’s double jeopardy law also allows a second state prosecution after a mistrial. It is ironic that the one hold-out juror who caused a mistrial on some charges opened up Manafort to state retrials.” via https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/paul-manafort-will-likely-go-to-jail-if-trump-pardons-him-thanks-to-a-lone-holdout-juror.html

MikeN:

“A lot of the counts don’t rely on Gates, and have lots of documentary evidence.”

Much of it involving Gates, as our one Trump-supporting outspoken juror makes clear.

“That’s because under cross-examination the defense revealed Gates to be lying, particularly about lying to the prosecutors, and whether the prosecutors caught him for lying.”

Actually, our one vocal Trump-supporting juror indicates that what you say wasn’t actually the underlying reason for them deciding to ignore Gates testimony, but hey, keep your fantasy alive.

I mean, your side is winning, Manafort’s only facing a max of 80 years while being a mere 69 years old.

>disheartening to the prosecution’s case that she says the entire jury agreed to disregard Gates testimony on the stand, apparently buying into the defense argument that he was unreliable and motivated.

That’s because under cross-examination the defense revealed Gates to be lying, particularly about lying to the prosecutors, and whether the prosecutors caught him for lying.

>But that wasn’t enough for 10 of 11 jurors on 10 of the counts, or 11 of the 11 on 8 of the counts.
A lot of the counts don’t rely on Gates, and have lots of documentary evidence. Manafort probably would have been helped if the jury hadn’t agreed to ignore Gates at the outset, and instead had Gates is a liar weighing on every deliberation.

>if there really was “reasonable doubt” Manafort could easily have won on appeal, and therefore she should probably have acceded to the obvious weight of evidence.

Is that how appeals work in Australia? Anyone else want to endorse this logic for a jury?

So, please consider waiting for more evidence before passing judgement. After all, we ask that juries do the same.

“The hold-out juror should have considered that if there really was “reasonable doubt” Manafort could easily have won on appeal”

That is not how the appeals system works in the US Federal Court system, however it might work in your country. The appeals process only addresses structural issues with the trial itself (evidence improperly allowed by the prosecution, or denied entry by the defense – only the defense can appeal the result of a trial itself, the prosecution’s ability to appeal is limited to sentencing and the like). The US Court Circuit Court of Appeals would not address whether or not the jury properly applied the principle of reasonable doubt when reaching their verdict. Juries here have near absolute power to choose as they will.

1) The hold-out juror should have considered that if there really was “reasonable doubt” Manafort could easily have won on appeal, and therefore she should probably have acceded to the obvious weight of evidence.

2) The ten counts were mistrialled, and hence they can be prosecuted again should the prosecuters choose to do so.

For instance this exchange regarding bank fraud:

‘The prosecution spent about 40 minutes Thursday afternoon questioning a bank employee about Manafort’s unsuccessful effort to get a $5.5 million construction loan on a Brooklyn brownstone, only to have Judge T.S. Ellis III suggest that the issue was unworthy of such extensive discussion at the trial. Notably, Ellis made the remark with the jury present.

“You might want to spend time on a loan that was granted,” the judge scoffed as prosecutor Uzo Asonye sat down after concluding his questioning of Citizens Bank employee Taryn Rodriguez.

That prompted Asonye, who had sat down, to jump back up.

“Your honor, this is a charged count in the indictment,” the prosecutor said.

“I know that,” Ellis shot back.’

Comments of this sort undermined the prosecution’s case regarding that particular count of bank fraud (and the related conspiracy to commit bank fraud). It’s a crime to defraud a bank even if the attempt is unsuccessful, the judge was definitely out of line to suggest that it wasn’t as serious as the attempts that were successful. Same crime.

I was actually surprised to learn that there were 10 votes to convict on each of the 10 hung counts …

I’m not going to pass judgement on her reasons for expressing reasonable doubt on the other 10 charges until we find out more. The Trump supporter who was interviewed and did vote guilty on all 18 charges despite her bias didn’t say anything that would indicate that it was bias rather than an honest opinion that caused the other woman to hold out. At this point we really don’t know. I’m glad the that Trump supporter who did vote guilty on all 18 counts found the evidence overwhelming. It’s also a bit disheartening to the prosecution’s case that she says the entire jury agreed to disregard Gates testimony on the stand, apparently buying into the defense argument that he was unreliable and motivated. But that wasn’t enough for 10 of 11 jurors on 10 of the counts, or 11 of the 11 on 8 of the counts. I doubt very much that the prosecution was really expecting conviction on all 18 counts, especially after the judge essentially told the jury that the case for some of those charges was weak.

Not that jury nullification on ideological grounds never happens. The Bundy trial over the Malheur NWR occupation was clearly a case of nullification led by one very persuasive juror who also managed to get a juror who fought him kicked off the jury for bias by, essentially, lying to the judge.