A legal question

[PJMcK]

Paul Manafort was indicted by Robert Mueller with two different sets of charges in two different venues, one in D.C. and one in Virginia.

The politico article linked below has an interesting paragraph:

Mueller’s office said that it gave Manafort the option of facing a consolidated case in Washington but that he declined, insisting on his right to be charged with the new counts in the district where they were committed.

Why would Manafort want to keep the two cases separate? Does he think he'll have a better chance of acquittal in one venue over the other? Is there some other rationale for this strategy?

Thanks, in advance.

Here's the link:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/13/judge-manafort-could-face-rest-of-life-in-prison-460302

[Stallion]

1. Maybe Because a Washington D.C. Jury Might be More Liberal than Virginia Jury

might not like venue or judge either

[PJMcK]

4. Interesting

Thanks!

[Lucky Luciano]

2. Not a legal expert, but I bet it delays things and makes scheduling harder.

Being a pain in the ass is best for his defense.

[onenote]

5. It could do those things, but it also increases his defense costs.

[PJMcK]

6. Good points

But the wheels of Justice grind slowly onwards and Manafort's life must be somewhat different for him now that he's under house arrest.

[onenote]

3. Probably because his lawyers believe he has a better chance in the EDVA than in DC.

By the way, hopefully if people begin to understand the concept of venue, they'll understand why certain bloggers, who I won't bother to name, who claim that there has been a sealed indictment of Trump sitting in the EDVA since last May are talking out of their asses.

[PJMcK]

7. Thanks for your response

But I don't understand your point about any "sealed indictments" and how the venue could impact them. Please explain and thanks again.

[onenote]

8. Edited to make clear I was talking about claims there a sealed indictment of Trump was handed down

in the EDVA last May.

One can't just bring a case before a grand jury willy-nilly -- there has to be a nexus between the criminal activity alleged and the venue chosen. As we've seen with the Gates and Manafort indictments.

The rumors, that some here continue to believe, that Trump was indicted last May rely on the argument that NY Attorney General Schneiderman had a case against Trump ready to go but then decided to turn it over to the feds who used that information to get an indictment against Trump in the Eastern District of Virginia. Among the legion of problems with this claim is the fact that Schneiderman would have been investigating actions occurring in New York and if he wanted to turn his evidence over to the feds, he would have gone to a federal district court in New York where there was a nexus between the alleged activity and the venue not to the Eastern District of Virginia.

[PJMcK]

10. That is very clear

Thanks, onenote.

I recall the story about a "sealed indictment" but I didn't think it related to Trump. I assumed it was directed at Junior. Well, we'll find out at some point.

Let's say, however, that Robert Mueller has some financial crimes to charge Trump with. Could he have filed them in the Southern District of New York and sealed them there?

[onenote]

11. I believe so, but I think we'd have some inkling of it if Mueller's folks were traipsing in and out

of a New York courthouse.

[grantcart]

9. He gets to validate his parking twice as much :)

[OldHippieChick]

12. Do not practice in that jurisdiction, but it may be that

consolidating the cases would put them all before one jury, thereby making it possible to ensure a guilty verdict and longer sentence. Separating them gives him a chance at acquittal in both jurisdictions as they may be able to exclude evidence of the other crimes.

[PJMcK]

13. Great observations

Thanks, Chick!

[Lucky Luciano]

14. Sounds like a good guess to me! nt