Manafort Jury - Should we be worried?

[avebury]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/jury-begins-deliberations-in-paul-manaforts-tax--and-bank-fraud-trial/2018/08/16/d2b0f486-a170-11e8-8e87-c869fe70a721_story.html?noredirect=on

Manafort jury sends judge four questions, asks him to define ‘reasonable doubt’

Jurors had four questions, some of which centered around defense arguments made by Manafort’s lawyers.

First, jurors asked if someone was required to file a form called an FBAR — which is required of people with foreign bank accounts containing more than $10,000 — if they owned less than 50 percent of such an account and did not have signature authority but did have the ability to direct disbursement. At trial, Manafort’s lawyers suggested their client might have believed he did not have to file such forms, because the companies in question were set up under his consulting firm. After 2011, he shared ownership of the firm equally with his wife.

In response, the judge read to them again the legal instructions he provided on that point Wednesday. He told the jury that along with the requirement for people who own more than 50 percent of a company with foreign bank accounts, a person must file FBARs if he “controls the disposition of money, funds, or other assets held in a financial account by direct communications.”


Second, jurors asked if the judge could define “shelf company” and the filing requirements related to income. Witnesses testified at Manafort’s trial that he used so-called shelf companies — companies previously created by a lawyer in Cyprus that could be used to control the bank accounts in question — in order to move Manafort’s money. To that question, the judge said the jury would have to rely on their memory of the evidence presented at trial.

Third, they asked if the judge could “redefine reasonable doubt.” Jurors sometimes struggle with what constitutes a reasonable doubt of someone’s guilt, versus an unreasonable doubt. The judge told them reasonable doubt “is a doubt based on reason,” but added: “The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.”

Defense attorneys emphasized in their closing argument that it’s not enough to believe a defendant is “likely” guilty or even “highly likely” guilty, using a thermometer chart to make the point.

Fourth, the jurors asked if they could have an updated exhibit list, connecting each piece of evidence to the corresponding charge in the indictment. The judge said they would have to rely on their collective memory to link exhibits to specific charges.

[manor321]

1. There are multiple charges

It is not all or nothing. They might be debating a few charges while having already decided on the rest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. What good will worrying do ?

We move forward regardless.

[PJMcK]

3. Sure. Why not?

I've got nothing else to do tonight. How about you?

[elleng]

4. Sounds like they're doing their job,

not easy, given complex facts.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Why be worried, did you bet your house on the outcome? n/t

[Va Lefty]

6. When the defense rested without calling any witnesses I thought maybe they have someone in the jury

[fallout87]

8. Resting without witnesses

is a widely used tactic by defense attorneys. Nothing out of the ordinary.

[fallout87]

7. The questions suggest

it's not a clear and quick victory for the prosecution. Not time to panic... but it's also clearly not time to celebrate.

[kstewart33]

9. Not yet.

No one knows what's going on. Have hope and let's see what happens tomorrow.

[Sancho]

10. They will convict on tax evasion

But maybe not on bank fraud. That’s my guess

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

11. Were the jurors allowed to take notes?

I hope so.

Were I ever to serve on a jury of any kind, I would absolutely want to take notes. I often takes notes, especially if something has a high emotional content, such as when my mother was in her final illness, or when I was needing to keep track of the details connecting to a life insurance policy.

A jury trial? Absolutely take notes.

[PoliticAverse]

13. Yes, the media made mention of them oaacsionally taking notes in "black notebook"s. n/t

[Atticus]

12. Some in the media are---SURPRISE!--- milking this for all the doubt/drama/suspense

they can wring out of it. There are 18 separate counts to consider plus the Court's instructions. It likely took half a day to elect a foreperson, read through the indictment and try to digest their instructions.

The jury then will consider each count separately, one at a time, separating out the exhibits that are applicable and discussing the testimony they believe relevant. They then will likely take preliminary votes on all of the counts to see where they agree and disagree. Most jurors take their responsibilities very seriously. No one should expect them to rush to a decision because they know we are anxiously waiting.

I'll be surprised if they don't take several days.