Posted on 08/16/2018 2:36:35 PM PDT by 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
If his crimes were so long ago..no prosecuted him...hmmm
#16. In the Left’s “Alice in Wonderland” world, proof is irrelevant. Off With Their Heads!
should be about Hillary.
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.
Does not bode well for the prosecution in my opinion. I’m not even on the jury, and I have reasonable doubt about this after hearing their star witness admit that he stole money.
However, the jury will feel intimidated just because this case is brought by the Feds.
Paul Manafort is an example for each of us just what the Feds can do to us if they want to.
With 18 counts, it would be unsurprising if jurors generally felt that he must be guilty of SOMETHING.
Have we heard anything about the defense closing summary?
I am confident in our legal system. They might get Manifort for some of the “minor” counts against him, but certainly not all. He was not bilking people out of their money in some pyramid scam. If he took any money, or failed to pay any money to the government, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
This whole thing is a joke, one big joke. It’s all set up to get Manifort to turn on Trump, but how can he turn on Trump when there’s nothing to turn on Trump with?
** part of me wants to believe this might be understandable, considering the money was made overseas and held in overseas accounts.
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?
“...I wouldn’t be able to know whether someone is guilty or innocent...” EQUALS “reasonable doubt”.
The prosecution FAILED to present their case. They lose.
That’s what I was going to say.
“Well yes if the entire jury is asking.”
The forman asks on behalf of the jury. For one or all of the jurors.
SHELF company?
do they mean SHELL company?
Not if Mueller gets his way....
He can only take it one day at a time.
Although, if Manafort were actually found not guilty on all counts in this trial, I imagine it would badly damage the public perceptions of the prosecution in the next trial.
Yes. So the question still stands. It’s helpful if the ENTIRE jury is asking.
My take:
He gets a slap on the wrist (if that).
Fine with time served.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.