“If you need to ask, you’ve got it.“
BINGO!
Some Circuits, like the 6th Circuit publish pattern jury instructions defining reasonable doubt. The 4th Circuit in 1999, U.S. v. Walton, et al, decided that it was better if the court did not define the term in criminal cases, but left it to the jury to decide what it meant. So, that is what I expect Judge Ellis to tell them. This will not resolve whatever confusion may have prompted the question, which can only benefit Manafort.
you got your anti-Trumpers and pro-Trump jurors staring each other down.
hung
Acquittal is just too much to hope for. I’ll just pray.
Tough call. One the one hand, Manafort did all of his crooked tax evasion when he was connected to Hillary and the DNC.
On the other hand, Mueller is a traitor and a crook and anything he succeeds at makes him stronger.
I guess on balance its not guilty.
“If you need to ask, you’ve got it. “
Yep.
Not guilty!!!!!
I am an Enrolled Agent. I have several clients that are required to file the FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report - also called FinCEN) and form 8938 (Statement of Foreign Financial Assets). The FBAR is filed separate from the personal tax return (1040 series) and is due on the tax return due date (including extensions). Form 8938 is included with the personal tax return. Willful errors on these forms can be serious.
FBAR related penalties:
Failing to file an FBAR can carry a civil penalty of $10,000 for each non-willful violation. But if your violation is found to be willful, the penalty is the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the amount in the account for each violation—and each year you didn’t file is a separate violation
FBAR and 8938 filing requirements:
www.irs.gov/businesses/comparison-of-form-8938-and-fbar-requirements
FBAR website:
https://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov/main.html
Hope the judge said that You just expressed it.
Of the ostrich suit don’t fit, you must acquit ...
REASONABLE DOUBT
n. not being sure of a criminal defendant’s guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable.
Would be tricky for me. He may well be guilty of many of the charges... on the other hand... the case is clearly being used to force him to make false statements against the President.
I like the judge’s practical definition. A doubt where you have a reason for your doubt. I assume he means a logical reason, but he doesn’t say that.
Not sure why anyone would think an acquittal is the end of this nonsense. Don’t they have Manafort back in court on other charges?
That’s what I was going to say.
SHELF company?
do they mean SHELL company?
A "reasonable doubt" is not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothosis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offense, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution which does not amount to an element need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty.