I would think so if he was saying things along the lines of “the case we presented at the trial make it obvious that the jury will acquit”. But this tea-leaf reading doesn’t add anything in that regard. He’s not commenting at this point about the strength of his case. He’s just saying “my reading of the jury is that they’re likely to acquit”. If they convict, then he was just wrong about it.
You don’t report that bit.
The liberal media will and the lefties will read it. The right will boost the tea reading statements and bury the news of the guilty verdict and your average news consumer in the right will only remember something about the case against Manafort looking pretty slim.
You leave court for the day; there’s a bank of microphones and a gaggle of reporters waiting for you to hold a press conference. You clearly have nothing to say - it’s a shit case, and at best you hope to get an acquittal on some of the many counts, just to say you did better than just pleading guilty. Even if it was a great case, you aren’t going to air the evidence in public while the jury is deliberating.
But you are a criminal defense lawyer - you live for getting your name in the paper or on TV. Having notoriety means that new clients will flock to you, and pay you more than you’re worth.
So you aren’t going to pass up the opportunity. But what do you say?
How about just “This was a good day for the defense” and walk off, all cool like?
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
True enough. In most cases it actually is better for the defense if the jury takes a long time about it, but in white collar cases like this one there was a lot of evidence sent back to the jury which was admitted but which wasn’t gone over explicitly in the trial. If they’re being conscientious and actually looking at all that stuff before reaching a verdict it’s not at all surprising that it’s taking them several days.
I have no opinion about this particular lawyer but I must object to this attack on criminal defense lawyers generally. The ones I know are hard working and dedicated trial lawyers who sincerely care about their clients and the Constitution. It’s a pretty thankless job, and almost never as well paid as other legal specialties.
Well, I speak as a proud criminal defense lawyer who believes in the value of his work. But I was thinking of my boss, who loves his celebrity clients, and the experience of having potentials come to the office to get represented by somebody who has been in the press. I promise you that it’s good for business, and there are “some” lawyers who become quite wealthy practicing criminal defense.
I just wonder if there are diehard Trumpians on the jury, and if so, how many?
I agree that the odds of acquittals on all counts is low, but if you have a determined ‘nullificationist’ or two on the jury…things could get interesting.
That’s my concern. You could have a hung jury on all counts. I have no doubt that there are a substantial number of people in this country who would act like that. They’ll insist that all of the evidence was manufactured by an all powerful “deep state”.
How such a powerful anti-Trump entity would allow him to be elected in the first place is a question they seem incapable of considering.
Hmm, seems like an all-powerful deep state would be able to keep someone like that off the jury, but what do I know.
Yes, but that makes sense. We’re talking about people who seem to be immune to making sense.
Let’s say you have some diehard Trumpists on the jury and they relent to agreeing upon one lone charge of failing to file a foreign bank account – if most of the other charges end with a deadlock, then expect to hear the right wing propaganda machine blasting at full volume that the entire investigation’s a sham. And that they ruined a “very good guy” over a mistake.
At that point, I could see Trump going nuclear and firing people related to the investigation. It’d be perfect timing. Ordinary people in a court - mostly his people but that’s beside the point - looked at the facts and decided they weren’t convinced that this Russia thing is a thing. “Time to stop wasting taxpayer money. Time to let Trump to do the work of the American people who elected him.”
I’m not making any predictions here; there’s no way to divine what a jury of people we don’t know might be thinking. But this outcome has crossed my mind more than once.
Trump is getting more and more desperate. He’s pulling security clearances left and right in a manner that weakens national security, and Congress doesn’t seem inclined to stop him.
The closer Mueller gets the worse Trump’s behavior will get.
I’d like to believe that Congress will act at some point, but I’m not optimistic. Even if Democrats take both houses in November, it won’t be by enough to successfully impeach and there will still be things he can do that they won’t be able to stop.
The amusing thing is, you put these exact same people on a jury of a black man accused of a crime only on the word of a police officer, and they will gleefully vote guilty, guilty, guilty.
There’s a lot riding on this case. If Mueller’s team scores convictions on most of these counts, then they get major momentum going into the next case, which will be held in the District of Columbia. I think what Trump is hoping for is a hung jury on all (more realistically most) counts so that he can claim that Mueller’s investigation’s going nowhere. That could, in his mind, give him justification for ending the investigation - “the people have spoken” kind of rationale.
I believe the word you were looking for is “appalling.”
Wanted to add to this.
Re the security clearances, he’s clearly sending a message to the currently serving civil service employees who staff these various agencies. He underestimated the strength of the cultures in the civilian & military federal workforce and the fact that they really actually do care about things like integrity, informing the public, promoting public interest, and exposing corruption, and this is almost to a man/woman on a bipartisan basis. He has found out that just replacing the head of the EPA, NOAA, the Park Service, the BLS, the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice doesn’t change one bit the determination of people who were hired with the understanding that they do their job, regardless of party affiliation. Sure there are exceptions, but the culture generally frowns upon partisan hackery. Trump is trying to intimidate the hundreds of thousands of employees whose motto is ‘next man/woman up.’ Goddamn right he’s desperate. He now knows what he’s up against.
That being said, given enough time, he can seriously injure these institutions. They’re already being seriously injured. You’ve got good career people at the senior levels who are leaving in droves. And the hiring in these departments has, in some cases, slowed. Given enough time, he can certainly impact the culture, even if he can’t change it so easily. He can make people fear for their careers and their jobs. Worst of all, he can make working for the federal workforce, and the government that serves the taxpayer, an unappealing place for talented people, which could mean that over time these jobs are filled by people who are less competent or even less desirable, just so certain offices can keep functioning. That’s one thing that’s at stake here, though it’s obviously deeper than that.
True, true that.
However, you can either laugh at the inanities of others, or cry that they are your fellow human beings, and I have too much stuff to get done to do any crying today.
CBS News is reporting that Judge Ellis has said he now has 24/7 protection because he’s been receiving threats over this case. Because of those threats, he is also not releasing the names of the jurors for their “peace and safety”. Apparently this is unusual? I thought juror names were never released until after the trial, but I don’t follow court cases much.
Because he was anointed by God.
Mueller wants to put Papadopoulos in jail for six months for repeatedly lying to investigators.