It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kharron
A slightly more complete set of quotes here. Somewhat ambiguous though.
The federal judge overseeing the Paul Manafort fraud trial signaled Friday afternoon a reluctance to publicly identify the jurors, saying they were “scared” and “afraid” and adding, “I’m not going to reveal any threats.”
“I had no idea this case would incite this emotion,” U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said in an open court hearing, responding to a motion from seven news organizations, including POLITICO, seeking access to sealed materials related to the trial.
originally posted by: samuelsson
a reply to: Kharron
Didnt Rosenstein have the chance to indict manafort for these crimes 7 years ago, and deicided not to do anything?
He's getting life in prison now?
Serious question? Life. For what?
On tax charges he faces in Virginia alone, his likely sentence would be eight years, prosecutors said in a previous court filing.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785
Hmmmmmm. Donald lives in Washington.
It does seem rather silly though, considering that you could probably charge half the people in DC with this same #.
CHANG: A lot of observers say that this is going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution because there's so much evidence. But you bring up in your piece something that could derail the government's case, and that's this idea of jury nullification. Can you just briefly explain what is jury nullification?
HONIG: Jury nullification happens when the jurors disregard the evidence that's been introduced at trial and the judge's legal instructions and instead decide the case based on some personal belief - some external belief that they may have, whether that's a political belief, a religious belief or just sort of a personal feeling about the case.
CHANG: OK. But jury nullification is extremely rare. Do you think there could be a greater chance of jury nullification in this case because it's been so highly anticipated and so politically charged? We have the president today calling, in tweets, for an end to the Russia investigation.
HONIG: Yes. Jury nullification is extremely rare. I want to make sure that point's clear. And I think jury nullification is at a higher likelihood in a high-profile case and especially here. This is about as high-profile as it gets.
CHANG: Well, how about you? Do you have personal experience with this? I mean, have you had a case where you were pretty sure one juror nullified?
HONIG: I have. About 10 years ago, I was tasked with doing the fourth trial of John Gotti Jr. here in New York City. He had been tried three times previously, and each time the jury hung. A few years later, he was charged again, and I tried that case against John Gotti Jr. And the jury hung 6-6. And at the end, we got to talk to the jurors. And the jurors who were for acquittal essentially said, yeah, we don't doubt that he was guilty. We just think it's unfair to try someone four times. So essentially...
CHANG: Oh, yeah.
HONIG: ...What that jury did was say, OK, the evidence may make out this guy's guilt, but we have a belief - a personal belief - about, basically, the overall fairness of the system.
CHANG: You've already mentioned that there's a possibility of a hung jury. If there were a hung jury in this case, what are the broader implications for the Mueller investigation? Would that be really damaging?
HONIG: I think a hung jury would be seen as pretty much an - akin to an acquittal. Technically, a hung jury is a tie, and almost always those cases are retried. But a hung jury is - make no mistake - is a loss for the prosecutor. I've had a hung jury. It hurts. If you ask a defense lawyer, will you take a hung jury? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, they'll say absolutely. And a hung jury here would be - I would predict that the president and others would gloat about a jury refused to convict. They didn't acquit. OK, but they refused to convict based on Mueller's evidence.
this seems like an odd thing to allow and again not saying the claim that cnn/other media sued to get this info is real or not its why i asked if any one could confirm just posted this to show how when photos and names are posted it can cause problems and seems like a really odd thing to allow at all
But one 79-year-old New York divorcee found out what jury duty is like when the circumstances are not the best. Ruth Jordan, a member of the jury in the trial of Tyco International executives Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz, has not only had her name and photo spread around the world, but was ridiculed in New York newspapers for allegedly being stingy, snobbish, and paranoid. The abuse occurred because she supposedly made a sympathetic signal to defense lawyers. That outrage prompted The Wall Street Journal's website and the New York Post to publish her name while the trial was underway, which is almost unheard of. With that information out, Jordan soon got a hostile anonymous phone call and a letter she regarded as disturbing. So Judge Michael Obus declared a mistrial, citing "the notoriety that was brought to bear on one particular juror, whose name and background have been widely publicized in the media." By that time, it was irrelevant that the abuse was unwarranted. The judge made a point of declaring that she did nothing wrong. His ire was directed at the press for disclosing her identity.
None of that happened. Relax dude.
No jurors have been threatened.
Paul Manafort's trial will stretch into a fourth week, as jurors headed home Friday without reaching a verdict for the second straight day and the judge overseeing the case alluded to "threats" the jury may be receiving.