Manafort Jury asks Judge to define reasonable doubt (Twitter)

Twitter ^ | 8/16/2016 | David S. Joachim

[sitetest]

Verified account

@davidjoachim Follow Follow @davidjoachim

More David S. Joachim Retweeted David S. Joachim *MANAFORT JURY ASKS JUDGE TO REDEFINE `REASONABLE DOUBT' David S. Joachim added,

David S. Joachim Verified account

@davidjoachim Breaking via @TheTerminal:

*MANAFORT JURY ASKS QUESTION OVER FBAR FILING

*MANAFORT JUDGE TELLS JURY TO RELY ON COLLECTIVE EVIDENCE

*MANAFORT JURY ASKS ABOUT DEFINITION OF SHELF COMPANY… 2:15 PM - 16 Aug 2018

[frank ballenger]

When they were assembling the grand jury a long time ago somone wrote “It looked like a Black Lives Matter rally in there. The only white guys in the big room were the two defense lawyers.”

Not sure of the exact context but watch for ==== all OJ juries all the time all the way.====

One OJ memory: a black woman who was kicked off the OJ jury after weeks, who had listened to the days long careful explanation of the meaning of the incredible odds against anyone but OJ sharing all the exact DNA factors with him and how the helices are matched or mismatched, this woman said:
“It don’t show me nothin’ in there. Lots of people walkin round have the same blood type.” Jaw droppingly STUPID. She should not be allowed to cross the street by herself for fear she will harm herself by her stupidity!And she was already on the jury until she violated the court rules and was kicked off it. We are in deep trouble in society.

[Ouchthatonehurt]

“If you need to ask, you’ve got it.“
BINGO!

[mlo]

"You are morally convinced the defendant did NOT do the crime, you must acquit."

That's backwards. If you are NOT morally convinced the defendant did the crime, you must acquit.

[PUGACHEV]

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.

[frank ballenger]

Please see my reply to no.101 below. On stupid jurors and our society is in deep trouble.

[Mr Rogers]

“Actually, I like that test, “Would you bet your life on it?”

That would go beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be more of a “no possible doubt” standard.

[HighSierra5]

Yeah, I how many of those jurors understand the laws concerning this case. Probably none. A professional would get out of serving. Their time is too valuable. What you end up with are a bunch of lawyer wanna bees and dummies.

[ExSES]

As the defense noted, no bank had brought any charges or actions of fraud against Manafort until the Feds showed up.

If every bank brought charges against applicants claiming "Fraudulent Statements"..., the "Justice System" would immediately grind to a gridlock halt! I can assure you that federal law enforcement only seeks such charges in VERY HIGH PROFILE CASES (or, in this case, politically motivated ones!)

[fhayek]

A Shelf Company manufactures and merchandizes shelves.

Duh.

[Eddie01]

you got your anti-Trumpers and pro-Trump jurors staring each other down.

hung

[Sacajaweau]

Since all the witnesses were liars, out to save their own hide, how do you even begin to evaluate the guilt of Manafort.

You have reasonable doubt before you even start.

[fhayek]

If the Trumpers are hung, I hope that the Anti-Trumpers aren’t pussies.

[Josa]

I was on a jury and the idiots kept saying our standard was “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” I corrected them then hung the jury. Guy they wanted the let off pled guilty to all charges because I was delaying a verdict

[ameribbean expat]

Shelf company is typically a corporation formed a long time ago, to give the appearance of history, but which has not engaged in any commerce. You “pull it off the shelf” when you need a place to park some funds in the company’s bank account. Very popular with intelligence agencies and money launderers.

[vette6387]

“In all honesty I would hate to be a juror on this trial. I wouldn’t be able to know whether someone is guilty or innocent cause I don’t understand the details of the case and I would be bored to death.”

Not me! Because this isn’t really about the guilt or innocence of Paul Manafort, I’d walk into the jury room and tell them that I am an “Unchangeable Not Guilty Vote!”
Let the rest of them know that no matter how long they “deliberate,” I will vote Not Guilty! My reasoning is that since Mueller is using the “justice system” to try and coerce false testimony from Manafort against the President, and not to adjudicate any of Manafort’s supposed “crimes,” that I will not be a participant in the railroad job here.

[Magnum44]

[Soros Billions]

Acquittal is just too much to hope for. I’ll just pray.

[MrEdd]

And patent trolls.

[freedumb2003]

>>”You are morally convinced the defendant did NOT do the crime, you must acquit.”
That’s backwards. If you are NOT morally convinced the defendant did the crime, you must acquit.<<

Hmmm.. I have to ponder that one. My immediate reaction is you are correct as it is the presumption of innocence. I phrased mine to comport with “what is reasonable doubt” as opposed to “what is presumption of innocence.”

Splitting some hairs but I think I answered the question more directly while you addressed the issue more completely.

A always IMHO. Which I decided is my new tag.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

What Judge Ellis answered (according to the Twitter feed of a reporter covering the trial) was that reasonable doubt means “doubt based on reason,” and that the government is not required to prove guilt beyond “all possible doubt.”