Manafort juror said one holdout 'exasperated' others with her logic

Yep people.

Trump haters hate banks so much they sent Manafort to prison for defrauding one.

Wrap your heads around that.

a reply to: norhoc

actually, there was one count of bank fraud that took place during the campaign and after the election. don't know if he was found guilty of that count or not. but, it kind of looked like manafort was using his ties with the trump admin to convince the founder of the bank (who was the ceo, or bank president, whatever) to give him outrageous loans that just didn't pass the muster by leading the guy on that he would get a high level job in the administration (and he actually did get to sit on trump's economic advisory board)...
like I said I don't know if he was found guilty of the bank fraud or not, the question that popped up in court was that could it have been fraud when the banks own president, ceo or whatever his title was, knew the loan applications were bogus to begin with but pushed them through anyways.
but it sure does sound a bit like corruption within the administration to me!!!

a reply to: neo96

one of those banks he defrauded was supposed to be for the benefit of veterans... manifort isn't no veteran is he?? didn't think so. for ever dollar that manifort exchanged for that "secretary of the navy job, or was it secretary of the armed forces, not sure at the moment.. that was one dollar that wasn't available to be loaned to a veteran. and it was lots, and lots of dollars!!!

tell ya what, I will see that as okay the day I can go down and rob that little bank and it be considered okay!!!

dp

originally posted by: HunkaHunka
a reply to: xuenchen

Yet they succeeded on 8 counts.

Manafort is going to prison for a LONG time :-)

He won't see a year. Trump will let him out the second the Russian investigation is over with. Gulianni said as much to Trump (have to wait until Russia is done with)

Gotta drain that swamp ya know

originally posted by: HunkaHunka
What’s reasonable about it? Reason requires an explanation, and in this case there was none

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: HunkaHunka

"She was just saying I want to review my notes," Duncan said. "When we asked her to explain her side she really couldn’t give us a good reason. She just said she had reasonable doubt."

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

This is journalism?

Jurors dont even have to give their names much less their reasoning .
Never been on jury duty in the US , have you ?

originally posted by: HunkaHunka
a reply to: xuenchen

Yet they succeeded on 8 counts.

Manafort is going to prison for a LONG time :-)

Ye, but Trump may Pardon him 😏

there isn't any corruption other then you not liking the POTUS

This is indisputably the most corrupt Presidency in history, even Republicans know it.

a reply to: Arnie123

He might, bosom buddies I guess..one slimy hand washes the other.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

How do you know ? The Judge could decide on probation and a fine. I will make my prediction now that the sentence will 6 to 10 years max.

Exceptions to the FBAR reporting requirements can be found in the FBAR instructions. There are filing exceptions for the following United States persons or foreign financial accounts:

Certain foreign financial accounts jointly owned by spouses
United States persons included in a consolidated FBAR
Correspondent/Nostro accounts
Foreign financial accounts owned by a governmental entity
Foreign financial accounts owned by an international financial institution
Owners and beneficiaries of U.S. IRAs
Participants in and beneficiaries of tax-qualified retirement plans
Certain individuals with signature authority over, but no financial interest in, a foreign financial account
Trust beneficiaries (but only if a U.S. person reports the account on an FBAR filed on behalf of the trust)
Foreign financial accounts maintained on a United States military banking facility.

Looks complicated and it could have been a case of the prosecution not giving the jury enough information to eliminate all the prospective remedies (which is pretty common).

originally posted by: HunkaHunka


mobile.reuters.com...

Paula Duncan, a Manafort juror and Trump supporter that helped convict Manafort claimed there was one juror who was the holdout on the other 10 counts. She said that everyone was exasperated with the ladies logic and that it made no sense.

Im glad to see that even Trump Supoorters see the corruption that has enveloped this administration

I find it funny that they had no issue with her logic on the 8 she did side with them on.

Wonder how her logic differed on the other 10.

She also said that others were clearly just there to find him guilty regardless and a couple even fell asleep at points because they cared so little about hearing the evidence.

Nice!

originally posted by: CB328

there isn't any corruption other then you not liking the POTUS

This is indisputably the most corrupt Presidency in history, even Republicans know it.

Hmmm....indisputably huh? Let the hate flow through you....there will be plenty more for you to hate I am sure.

Oh...can you let me know what corruption you are speaking of?

originally posted by: HunkaHunka
What’s reasonable about it? Reason requires an explanation, and in this case there was none

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: HunkaHunka

"She was just saying I want to review my notes," Duncan said. "When we asked her to explain her side she really couldn’t give us a good reason. She just said she had reasonable doubt."

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

This is journalism?

Not in a jury room.

For those attacking Trump -
Can you explain what Trump has to do with what Manafort was charged with and found guilty of?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think it has something to do with "the best people."

But I could be wrong.

a reply to: Phage

My point being this one juror voted to convict on 8 other charges. There is no set defined legal definition for reasonable doubt. It is incumbent on the jurors to take the info and make a determination based on everything they saw / heard / etc in court. Essentially you would be asking a person to explain why something they saw / heard didnt convince them. You delve into personal reasons and as we both know from this site perfectly reasonable to one is howl at the moon crazy to someone else.

Having jurors brow beat another juror because of her rationale is problematic and can also result in any convictions being thrown out.

Speaking of which Manaforts team has not decided on that point yet. They have a few options.
* - Appeal the convictions.
* - Request the judge declare a mistrial and set the verdicts aside to start over based on improper jury conduct.

The jury issue is the one I see being looked at first. In the middle of the trial they had an issue with 3 jurors who supposedly violated the requirement about not discussing the case and by making prejudgments before all the facts were in.

The defense did file a motion for a mistrial but the judge declined it. Because of the outcome it is one path they can use to appeal the convictions.

a reply to: Xcathdra

12 Angry Men was a very good movie.

Would you agree?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

12 Angry Men was a very good movie.

Would you agree?

Yes it was a good movie.

My point though was to point out that if a jurors mind is made up, ganging up on them with demands they explain their reasoning moves into a realm that can derail the entire case and cause a mistrial..

While this one juror was a holdout the other jurors I mentioned made comments about the defense not putting on a defense and another discussing how weak the defense case was before the end of the trial.

Hence the reason for the defense wanting a mistrial.

12 jurors of your peers... not a mob.

The whole premise of this thread is worrisome to me.

A juror is charged with the ultimate power in deciding whether or not to convict. The standard for conviction of a crime is purposely high: the prosecution has to convince all 12 people the plaintiff is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. If they fail to convince one, they don't get the guilty verdict. No one has the right to demand an explanation from her, and no one should. If there is doubt, and that doubt appears reasonable to her after discussing it with the other 11 jurors, then there is reasonable doubt. A jury room is not a democracy.

I am having a heck of a hard time trying to see any partisanship in this case, although some seem bent on injecting some. Manafort was hired by Trump to run a campaign. OK. If I hire someone to paint my house and he later gets arrested and convicted for rape, does that make me a rapist? It would appear so, according to some of the responses I have seen. That is worrisome in the extreme, because it throws out centuries of legal precedent that says each is responsible for their own actions. It is also an end run around the freedom of assembly, because someone who associates with another who later turns out to be a criminal, is deemed a criminal themselves for exercising that freedom... even if no one knew about the criminality at the time.

Me? I believe that 12 jurors will normally come to a correct conclusion. In this case, they chose to convict Paul Manafort of 8 counts of financial crimes. They deadlocked on the other 10 counts, which does not make him innocent necessarily, just not guilty. So, considering a maximum sentence of 80 years is in effect a life sentence, I don't see what the difference is in a practical sense. If he gets the maximum penalty, Paul Manafort will die in prison. Is that not enough?

I honestly hope he doesn't receive that maximum. 10 years should be enough IMO. Life sentences should be reserved for murder, rape, and sedition.

I also hope Trump does not pardon him. If he does, it will not greatly affect my opinion of him, as that is based on overall job performance, but I do hope Manafort serves an appropriate sentence.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

My point though was to point out that if a jurors mind is made up, ganging up on them with demands they explain their reasoning moves into a realm that can derail the entire case and cause a mistrial..

Yes. Insisting that someone reconsider their position can be overdone. But the approach taken is important.


As irascible as this judge was, it seems that in the end there is little room for anyone to claim that the outcome of the trial was not fair.