Help me out here. What is the CFI effect?
Complete Fucking Idiot Effect?
I suspect she means the “CSI Effect”, i.e. the tendency of jurors to judge evidence by the (unrealistic) standards that they’ve seen on TV shows.
[Confusing an “F” and “S” is extremely common for people who hear things over the phone, since phones don’t distinguish between those sounds. Not so common for people reading, though.]
I think Aspenglow meant CSU effect, where juries expect a bunch of 100% certain science about every damned detail of evidence.
ninja’d again
I don’t think it was the publicity of the trial that got to Ellis, as in Ito’s case. I think he’d just gotten into the rather sloppy habit of messing with the lawyers as a way to amuse himself during trials. Not wanting to be the proverbial “potted plant.” And I am sure he is, for the most part, a good and fair jurist – has probably taught a lot of lawyers a lot of important things.
In fact, it likely was the publicity that brought his bad habit to his attention. He made a comment to the lawyers outside the presence of the jury (I believe they were discussing jury instructions) during the final days of the trial that made it clear he was following what the press was saying about him and his rulings.
Judges really are the rulers of their own courtrooms with little oversight, and each courtroom evolves its own culture. Some are known as liberal, some very hard on the lawyers, some are called the “second prosecutor in the courtroom.” Still others become known for amusing themselves at the lawyers’ expense. Sometimes those cultures get a little out of hand. That’s what I believe happened here. To Judge Ellis’s credit, he did recognize the problem and took appropriate remedial steps.
I’m sorry. I did mean CSI, CFI. There are reasons why CFI is a common typo I make.
I like it. 
But probably not the case with Judge Ellis.
Exactly. They want DNA evidence for every rape case, e.g. Not always available.
Also the misunderstanding that circumstantial evidence is not as important as direct evidence. In the eyes of the law, both are equally persuasive.
Not a lawyer, but this seems like the most valid analysis I’ve read in a while. I think Manafort’s guilty as sin, and I’m guessing that most of the jurors see it that was as well. But it takes just one lone juror to royally fuck things up.
I remember I used to know a civil trial lawyer and I expressed my skepticism over juries, believing that they could easily be suckered and wrongly convict people. While he acknowledged the gullibility of jurors, he said no matter what, he always wanted a jury. If he could just convince one that there was any doubt…
Touching on a point that’s been discussed here already, I remember Marcia Clark of O. J. Simpson trial fame remarked a few years back (think it was during the Zimmerman case) that many jurors get confused about “reasonable” doubt. Beyond all “reasonable” doubt doesn’t mean that the prosecution has to prove something with 100% certainty. In theory there might possibly be other explanations for certain evidence during a trial, but jurors shouldn’t be required to perform mental gymnastics to explain away evidence.
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.
Unless I have my timeline wrong, you might have been a little prescient here.
Looks like the jurors might be “performing mental gymnastics to explain away evidence”.
WaPo article stating that the jurors have sent several questions to the judge including the definition of beyond reasonable doubt.
I don’t know why I would worry. I’m sure I’ll wake up tomorrow and all will be right with the world.
The jury asked for the definition of ‘reasonable doubt’, and asked about the definition of shelf companies - which IIRC is important because companies that own a foreign bank account might be required to disclose it, but only people owning 51% of the company don’t have to file; I think Manafort owned exactly 50% of the consulting business (somehow I doubt that figure is a coincidence).
The jury is going to acquit on all counts because of ‘reasonable doubt’ since they can come up with some half-assed plausible explanation for all the evidence.
Not guilty on all counts. You heard it here first.
And really - after O.J. Simpson, George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony, should we really be surprised that any jury can get it totally, completely fucking wrong?
Would you care to make it interesting?
I’ll pay $100 to your charity of choice if guilty on all counts, you pay $100 to my charity of choice if not guilty on all counts, and if it’s guilty on some not guilty on others it’s a push?
Sadly, I have to agree with you. 
Hmm, I don’t know if I would bet on guilty on all counts. I do think there’s a reasonable chance that he may be acquitted on some. How about:
- I win if he’s convicted on a majority (10+) of the 18 counts;
- you win if he’s acquitted on a majority (10+) of the 18 counts;
- it’s a push if neither convictions nor acquittals add up to a majority.
I agree to the terms of a hundo buckaroos.
I can live with that. And perhaps we could triple the payout if he’s guilty (or acquitted) of all charges - something I would be very very happy to lose…
It doesn’t take much for one Trumpist to sneak onto a jury.
Of course, Manafort has another trial coming.
The jury asking about the definition of “reasonable doubt” looks like a non-story, to me. I’d be surprised if there’s any jury trial where that’s not asked by some juror or another. Heck, I’ve asked it myself many times (though never from a jury box), and never once gotten a straight answer.
Chuck Rosenberg, who served as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, told Rachel Maddow last night that that is a very common question, probably the one juries ask more than any other.
You got a deal. I await the verdict with bated breath. This is almost as fun as five dollar blackjack.