There seems to be no option for a hung jury in the manafort trial?

The jury issued a question to the judge a little bit ago.. what happens if we can't reach an agreement on one of the 18 counts against manifort and asked them if they could have a new jury form that has the option of a hung jury for each count.
well.... sorry, but no, it didn't fly.
I started out having an open mind about this judge, but it's closing real fast.
He didn't want to waste time during the trial, so instead of the jurors being given copies of the documents that they were talking about, they just kind of dumped them all on the jury and told them to go sort them out and figure out what pertains to what count. and, now, it's like he's holding them hostage till they come to an agreement or something.

Paul Manafort's attorney Kevin Downing asked Judge T.S. Ellis to give the jury a new verdict form, after the jury said "we will need another form please" in their Tuesday note.

Ellis said he would not.

Downing said he wished jurors would be given a third option on the form -- a hung jury option for each count. The jury verdict form gives jurors only the options of not guilty or guilty for each of the 18 charges against Manafort.

The judge said he will not ask the jury for a partial verdict at this time. They must continue their work, he told the court.

www.cnn.com...

he then went on..

Speaking for about five minutes, Judge T.S. Ellis told the jury: "You should not surrender your honest conviction" simply to reach a verdict.

He encouraged each juror to make their own decisions on each count, but if some were in the minority on a decision, to think about what the other jurors believe.

"It is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so" without violating any juror's individual inclinations, Ellis said.

Give "deference" to each other and "listen to each other's arguments," he said.

"You're the exclusive judges," he said, encouraging the jurors to make their own decisions about witness testimony and evidence in the case.

"Take all the time which you feel is necessary."

....same source...

all I can see is one poor soul scouring through the mass of papers looking for that one paper that was talked about but seemingly no where to be found while the others sit griping at him...

The Jury will be as divided as the public is.

Some have Blue Kool-Aid poisoning... some have Red, and it's likely there's one or two jurors that see this for what it is, an extortion racket by Mueller.

I bet this remains a "hung" jury.

I hope he gets acquitted

a reply to: dasman888

the way the question they asked makes it sound like they just can't reach an agreement on one count though.. although I admit they might have phrased their question that way so as to not reveal how many counts they couldn't agree on. but even if it is more than one, it wouldn't be all of them or probably even alot of them else they would have phrased it we more like we just can't reach an agreement, help!!!

What a load of BULL SNIP.

Prosecutors say Manafort hid tens of millions of dollars in foreign income from Ukraine. They also say he lied on loan applications to obtain millions more to maintain a lavish lifestyle.

Has absolutely not an EFFING thing to do with.....

The trial is the first courtroom test of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe,though the case doesn't involve allegations of Russian election interference.

Jacksnip kangaroo court.

Had Manafort paid his taxes and let US government get their cut off the top.

There'd be NO ISSUE.

a reply to: neo96


well, there is one little tiny part in it that does pertain to the trump administration..
one of those bank fraud charges involved a top level official of the bank that kind of pushed the loan through, even though his own brother wouldn't sign off on it. that top level official also was writing to the gov't for his updates to prepare him for his promised job as secretary of the navy, or armed forces, or something like that.
that might be the count that the juror is hung up on, since there might be some validity to the question of weather he committed fraud against the bank when the founder of the bank and just about everyone else that handled the loan application know that the application had a bunch of bogus facts but the founder pushed it through for the perk that manifort was offering.

a reply to: dawnstar

People should love Manafort for ripping off a bank(if he really did), after decades of demagoguery.

a reply to: neo96

no, people should be sick of people with the money, people with the power, getting off for these kinds of crimes, usually involving millions of dollars, while they are dragged through the mud for so much less.
how many innocent people lost their jobs in the last housing bust, how many were evicted from their homes (a few who really didn't even have a mortgage), how many were misled as to the actual value of their home by the appraisers?
a few people made a ton of money from the last housing bust, and of course the banks just had to be bailed out..
but nope, the actual people, well, they didn't matter.

a reply to: dasman888

If it's just one count they are divided on the panel seems to be doing just fine. They just need time to think about the count and the evidence. It hasn't been that long. I trust they will muddle through. And have patience if someone needs help understanding too.

a reply to: dawnstar

no, people should be sick of people with the money, people with the power, getting off for these kinds of crimes, usually involving millions of dollars, while they are dragged through the mud for so much less.

No.

See someone skating with classfied material on private servers.

SO I have been on at least 7 juries in my time and 2 of them were Federal. In two cases we had issues regarding a few of the counts and could not reach a consensus. The Judge in both cases asked us to keep deliberating. It happens all the time. At some point they will simply remain deadlocked on the verdict and the court will move on.

If you haven't been on a jury before, the deliberation part is a tough one.

You have to go count by count and reach a consensus. You have notes, transcripts and pieces of evidence that you have to consider in each case. Every jury I have been on took the role seriously and gave each count the scrutiny it deserved.

It takes time. Of the seven trials I have been on the shortest deliberations I had was 4 days, and the longest was 2 weeks.

a reply to: neo96

That's kind of the point of tax laws.

The next trial about money laundering and conspiracy to defraud the government which has over a thousand pieces of evidence will be more interesting.

For the record I don't think he should go to jail for what could be the rest of his life for tax evasion. A year and fines should be it if you ask me.

Some people might be scared of CNN if they give a not guilty verdict

Probably a smaller amount of people are mad at CNN trying to dox them and will vote not guilty, no matter what. Just to stand up to the bully of CNN

a reply to: neo96

You're a one hit wonder.

a reply to: Sillyolme
ya, another ooops, I got cornered again, time for another...
but, but hillary!!!

gee, I am sure that there's a few murderers who got off also, maybe we should just let them all off, makes it all fair all around??

Does the request for a hung jury form indicate that on one count the jury felt, at least at that time, that a hung jury verdict for that count was where they had settled? Unless the jury felt like a hung jury was possible, then why bother to ask for another option other than guilty or acquittal?

Full disclosure, I have never been called for jury duty, so my personal knowledge of how a jury goes about this phase of a trial is more than a little foreign to me.

a reply to: xtradimensions

If the jury cannot reach a unanimous consensus then that particular count they are considered hung.

It could be just one person, or it could be many, its hard to tell.

Sometimes, the holdup is that one particular juror want to re look at all over the evidence before making a choice to be 100% sure.

I did so in one such case. I wanted to review the evidence because if we agreed with one part, the defense's case fell apart. I felt the particular person was guilty but I wanted to be sure and make sure that the evidence supported it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Its can be daunting knowing you literally hold sway over someone future and you want to make the right call.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
For the record I don't think he should go to jail for what could be the rest of his life for tax evasion. A year and fines should be it if you ask me.

wow nothing here to show prior position is there?
lol
"wait till manafort flips"