How odd.
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
Somewhat. Burden is on prosectution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and defense is going to hammer both prongs of that - presumption and the standard of proof. Closing argument is allowed to poke holes in evidence offered by the prosecution, to say what is there that creates reasonable doubt.
The only thing witnesses do is provide fact evidence.
It’s a foregone conclusion. There will always be appeals. Who knows maybe even a Trump pardon.
Depends on how much of their own evidence came in during the prosecution phase.
They may feel that with the jury they have it does no good to put on a defense
That’s ballsy, basically they are saying. Government didn’t prove its case so we don’t even need to put up a defense!
I dunno. Ronald Reagan said if your explaining your losing....this may be a stroke of genius.
I believe Manafort’s attorneys don’t ant Manafort to be cross examined. The defense is not really that Manafort is innocent, not directly anyway, but that Gates is a scoundrel who can[t be believed. This makes it a trial of Gatesrather than Manafort though Manafort, not Gates, does the time if it gomisfires.