Posted on 08/14/2018 9:08:06 AM PDT by Coronal
Attorneys for Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who is on trial for financial crimes in federal district court Alexandria, Virginia, will not present a defense of their client, ABC News has learned.
Government prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office rested their case on Monday, so without a defense, the jury is expected to begin deliberations following closing arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
How odd.
Balls
Must feel confident
Was the prosecution that horrible?
That decision (to skip a defense in court) doesn’t make much sense to me.
Unless — the fix is in !
This is a fairly common tactic. They want the jury to hold the prosecution to their burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than just comparing the defense vs. prosecution case and voting on who had the better case.
If the prosecution proves your innocence, why waste the Jury’s time?
Prosecution is probably going to ask for a mistrial because they will claim the judge was (in their opinion) biased.
Case might be retried. Is this a strategy to avoid tipping their hat at their defense plan?
Or are they just really confident? (or both)?
How odd.
Not really. The prosecutor did not prove anything other than Manafort is rich and spends money.
The Attorney has more leeway in a closing argument then when presenting evidence. I suspect he will ask the judge to just tossed the case since no real proof was presented.
But then I am not a lawyer and everything I know has been learned by watching Perry Mason /s
In these far reaching fairy tale cases like this, I agree, this is a good tactic to use. If the prosecution can’t prove their case, you have nothing to defend yourself against.
Same here, and its been decades since I saw Perry Mason.
Wouldnt call it fairly common. More like used occasionally.
It is a risky strategy.
It’d be great to see this dismissed with prejudice.
I am not a lawyer and everything I know has been learned by watching My Cousin Vinny.
I've seen people in court with cargo shorts and flip-flops. I'm talking witnesses!
On a jury a few years back, I showed up with a shirt and tie and I was made the foreman of the jury, probably because I was better dressed than everybody else.
During that trial, I was still in Massachusetts, and I remember one of the court clerks being very angry with me because I had a copy of a Howie Carr book to read. People who work for the state government in Massachusetts really hate Howie Carr.
“”””””””””But then I am not a lawyer and everything I know has been learned by watching Perry Mason /s”””””””””””””””””
I’ve watched My Cousin Vinny about a hundred times. Plus I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express. I plan on taking the BAR exam soon.
I’m sure the closing arguments will focus like a laser on the prosecution’s burden of proof. Hung jury at least.
That decision (to skip a defense in court) doesn’t make much sense to me.
+++++
I agree. But just who would Manafort call to testify in his defense? It’s not obvious to me. And there is no way that he is convicted given the evidence I’ve seen. And an intelligent jury. That’s the wild card.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.