# WTF is happening in the Manafort trial - The defense calls no witnesses **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 15, 2018, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642 "2018-08-15T06:54:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2018, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/21 "2018-08-15T23:32:54Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Maybe they’re counting on judge Ellis instructing the [jury] to acquit. Not gonna happen. Throughout the entire trial Ellis has done nothing but ensure that the prosecution presents the most concise, airtight case they possibly could. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2018, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/22 "2018-08-15T23:48:47Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Not gonna happen. Throughout the entire trial Ellis has done nothing but ensure that the prosecution presents the most concise, airtight case they possibly could. I don’t get the impression that the prosecution agrees with you on this. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2018, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/23 "2018-08-15T23:50:09Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Not gonna happen. Throughout the entire trial Ellis has done nothing but ensure that the prosecution presents the most concise, airtight case they possibly could. Sure, but the impression I’ve been getting from discussions of his handling of the trial suggests that he’s going to be inclined to find them wanting. > [@begbert2](#): > > I don’t get the impression that the prosecution agrees with you on this. Case in point. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/24 "2018-08-16T00:01:12Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > He hasn’t turned against Trump and will be rewarded for his silence. [”Never rat on your friends, and always keep your mouth shut.”](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Mfs44MhYM) Well, one out of two ain’t…great, but it’s probably enough for a pardon. Hey, if John Poindexter could get pardoned for Iran Contra… > [@scr4](#): > > OK. But isn’t it in their interest to provide witness that can corroborate their _argument_? Presenting a witness invites cross-examination. To paraphrase an old platitude sometimes it is best to be silent and thought guilty than to open one’s mouth and prove it so. And if Mueller does, in fact, have an “airtight case” (and given his record it seems likely he’d be unwilling to go to trial without) there is little benefit to having a defense witness perjury himself even if you can find someone willing to do so, and invites further challenge for subornation of perjury if the defense counsel knowingly introduced false testimony. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/25 "2018-08-16T00:11:08Z")
JFTR, IANAL. But I’m amused by the impressive level of nitpickery over the word ‘case’ in my earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/26 "2018-08-16T00:13:21Z")
I once served on a jury in a murder trial where the defense did not present a case. The two eyewitnesses to the murder were both under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and the defense argued that since they could not be believed, there was no evidence against the defendant. We found him guilty. (Yes, the eyewitnesses were impaired, but following the murder, they immediately ran to inform several police officers who were only a block away, and separately told consistent stories. Also, this was not a case involving identification – the suspect was an acquaintance of the eyewitnesses.) ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/27 "2018-08-16T00:25:03Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Sure, but the impression I’ve been getting from discussions of his handling of the trial suggests that he’s going to be inclined to find them wanting. A lot of those discussions involve people who don’t know what they’re talking about, and have apparently never followed a criminal trial before. Read [this article](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/manafort-trial-judge-keeps-yelling-prosecutors-s-not-good-news-ncna898736) from Ken White for some non-pearl-clutching analysis. > [@](#): > > …Judges often snipe more at the side they expect to win. Even a simple criminal trial requires a judge to make dozens of discretionary decisions like what evidence to admit or exclude, how long to let the parties take with witnesses and the scope of permissible argument. Judges routinely cut the weaker side all of the breaks, hoping to make a bulletproof record for appeal when that side loses. Riding prosecutors and limiting their evidence doesn’t necessarily signal that Ellis thinks they’re in the wrong — it may signal that he thinks they’re likely to convict Manafort, and he wants to make the result as clean and error-free as possible. Ellis is not some partisan hack. He’s an experienced judge and knows exactly what he’s doing. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/28 "2018-08-16T00:27:43Z")
You have 2 types of jury trials. In one, a civil trial, the issue is typically over money (or some other dispute) between two private individuals. In the other, a criminal trial, a person is facing conviction for committing a crime. In the civil case, the standard to win is “preponderance of the evidence” (which is usually translated to “more likely than not”) and the person being sued can be forced to testify. As a result, you get two sides each telling their version of a story. This naturally invites both sides to bring in their own witnesses. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor has to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” (far more ambiguous, but described as the highest burden of proof, and high enough that any nagging uncertainties should lead to an acquittal). Also, not only does the prosecutor not get to force the defendant to testify, but he or she can’t even comment on their decision not to. So, in a criminal case, the defendant gets to play strictly defense; just undercutting the credibility of witnesses is enough to earn an acquittal, as you don’t necessarily have to present your own version of events. In other words, in a criminal trial, it’s enough to conclude “he didn’t prove it”, unlike the civil trial, where you have to be able to say “my version is more likely to have happened.” So, in short, it’s not necessarily bad or crazy to not call any witnesses in this case. And it can be necessary if the witnesses that you’d like don’t exist. This does mean that you have to rely on the defense of “these people aren’t credible” or “these documents don’t say what you were told they say”. Here, as I understand it, the defense is basically “Gates is a rat trying to save himself, so you can’t take him at his word, and everything he was involved with his questionable” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/29 "2018-08-16T03:07:49Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > So, in short, it’s not necessarily bad or crazy to not call any witnesses in this case. And it can be necessary if the witnesses that you’d like don’t exist. This does mean that you have to rely on the defense of “these people aren’t credible” or “these documents don’t say what you were told they say”. Here, as I understand it, the defense is basically “Gates is a rat trying to save himself, so you can’t take him at his word, and everything he was involved with his questionable” Isn’t that the go to strategy when the prosecution has turned a participant and the defense has nothing else? I’m sure I’ve read of it used during mob trials. How effective is it? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/30 "2018-08-16T03:34:55Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > The sooner the trial ends, the sooner Manafort is either convicted and sentenced, or found not guilty and released, or there’s a do-over mistrial. If by some chance he is found guilty he will likely serve a few months and then be pardoned by Trump, out of prison and sitting home cooking up his next tax fraud scheme. He hasn’t turned against Trump and will be rewarded for his silence. He probably knows something that Trump would rather not be publicly known. It’s good to know the king and know something the king would rather be kept secret from the subjects. Not with another trial in the District Court in DC coming up. This will play out until the mid-terms. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/31 "2018-08-16T03:40:03Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > In the civil case, the standard to win is “preponderance of the evidence” (which is usually translated to “more likely than not”) … [nitpicking] It’s usually translated to that, only because that is precisely and accurately what it means. [/nitpicking] ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642/32 "2018-08-16T03:44:05Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > OK. But isn’t it in their interest to provide witness that can corroborate their _argument_? They’re going to use Gates himself. The first thing he said in his testimony was that he committed crimes while working with Manafort. He’s admitted he embezzled from Manafort. The defence can say he’s the dirty one, proved out of his own mouth, and therefore not trustworthy, so reasonable doubt whether he did it on his own, or in cooperation with Manafort. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-happening-in-the-manafort-trial-the-defense-calls-no-witnesses/819642.md?page=1)