Posted on 08/08/2018 9:58:07 AM PDT by sickoflibs
LEXANDRIA, Va. After jurors were dismissed Monday in the Paul Manafort trial Monday, the federal judge overseeing the case and prosecutors trying the former Trump campaign chairman got into an extended verbal debate -- lasting about 10 minutes -- over the merits of the prosecution, the length of the case and even the eye contact of prosecutor Greg Andres.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III specifically pushed Andres on why the prosecution was moving slowly with Rick Gates the former Manafort business partner who testified on Monday and specifically to describe the link between wealthy Ukrainian politicos and Manafort. Ellis argued that the connection was not the basis of the case.
What matters are the allegations that he made money from them and didnt report it, Ellis said. You don't need to throw mud at these people.
That makes it even clearer to me that it doesnt have anything to do with the allegations in this case, Ellis responded. It throws dirt on these people. They may deserve it. I dont know - and I dont care.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The fact that he embezzeled monies tells me that HE had more say over the books than Manafort. And the bookkeeper wasn’t honest either. Gates had to know that but doesn’t mean Manafort knew she was doing some cheating.
Judge shopping is nothing new. Ellis is both experienced and wise.
Bingo. The judge gives you a fair trial but if you get convicted he gives you less grounds to appeal.
Can judge dismiss WITH PREJUDICE & no more filings can happen?
I thought I heard that the bookkeeper claimed it was Gates who told her to cheat on the taxes and that he showed her something with Manafort's signature verifying he agreed to it. Do they have that documentation? Or did I just dream this?
Yes, a judge can dismiss with prejudice.
Typically though that is not what happens when you have a hung jury.
This judge may throw the whole dam thing out.
~~~~
This would be bad and the judge knows it. It only gets manafort off temporarily.
That’s why the prosecution is dragging their feet. It seems like they know they are likely to lose, and would rather get the case thrown out. They are going to draw this out until the judge stops them. What they don’t want is an actual verdict.
Astonishingly bad lawyers.
:-)
Rick Gates guilty of subornation of perjury, just like Ted Stephens case.
What a lot of people don't understand is that federal prosecutors hardly ever see the inside of a court room.
Everything in the fed system in plea bargained so when it comes to an actual trial they are often the least experienced attorneys in the court room.
Mansfort's attorneys do this for a living every day.
As I noted previously, the judge doing a sua sponte dismissal just gives the government an issue on appeal. Now, if the defense makes a motion for directed verdict after the close of the government’s case and he grants it, THEN we’re talkin’.
It is hard to see the prosecution winning this mess.
if Manafort is not convicted there won’t be another trial.
Muehler is shown to be a fraud and even the Goebbelsmedia will turn on him.
Looking for a hung jury?
Made me look.
Sua sponte
Latin for “of one’s own accord; voluntarily.” Used to indicate that a court has taken notice of an issue on its own motion without prompting or suggestion from either party.
As a general rule, where grounds for dismissal exist, an action is subject to dismissal on a court’s own motion. A trial court has the power to dismiss an action sua sponte for want of prosecution, or failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure or a court’s orders. A court may sua sponte enter a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction even though both parties have agreed to appear in the court.
See, e.g., Carlisle v. United States, 517 US 416 (1996) and Trest v. Cain, 522 US 87 (1997).
This says civil. Can it happen in criminal court?
Exactly.
This judge should yell at Mueller to wrap it up, maybe even make him cry.
I bet they are complaining the judge is a Bush appointment. I’m so confused. I thought in all this Russia stuff, the Ukrainians were the good guys. They helped develop the profile on Trump did they not in an effort to support Clinton? And they are the victims of Russian aggression according to the Russo-phobes. But in THIS case they are the bad guys?
Yeah, jury trials can be tough. Knowing what stupid results have come of juries does not reassure me.
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.