Manafort Jury's First Questions Included Defining 'Reasonable Doubt'
Responding to that request, the judge said the prosecution bore the burden of proving its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond “all possible doubt.”
August 16, 2018 at 06:20 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
After a full day of deliberations, jurors handling Paul Manafort's tax and bank fraud trial emerged at about 5 p.m. Thursday with a knock on a side door to the courtroom and a note with questions for U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia.
Their inquiries included a technical question related to the allegations that Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, failed to disclose foreign bank accounts. The jury asked whether one is required to file a disclosure, known as a FBAR, if they lack signatory authority over an account and own less than half its assets, but do have the authority to direct disbursements.
In response, Ellis re-read the instruction he gave the jurors before they entered deliberations.
The jury also asked Ellis for clarification on the meaning of “reasonable doubt.” Responding to that request, Ellis said the prosecution bore the burden of proving its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt but not beyond “all possible doubt.”
Reasonable doubt, Ellis said, “is doubt based on reason.”
Their last question asked the judge for an amended list of exhibits, changed to include the indictment counts to the related exhibits—a sign that jurors could be struggling through the extensive paper trail of evidence prosecutors laid out. The judge declined that request.
In their note to Ellis, the jurors also said they planned to conclude deliberations for the day at 5:30 p.m. The jurors are set to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. Friday. Their questions, which were read aloud in open court, gave no indication of how close they are to reaching a verdict.
Before cutting out of court, the judge urged jurors to go home and “put the matter” of the trial out of their minds. Repeating directions he's given the jury before, Ellis told them it “continues to be very important” that they not conduct any inquires on their own.
But forgetting about the trial might be easier for Ellis than for jurors, the judge admitted. He has a “boring dinner” tonight.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
2 minute read'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readJustice on the Move: The Impact of 'Bristol-Myers Squibb' on FLSA Forum-Shopping
9 minute readFederal Judge Grants FTC Motion Blocking Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Merger
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Orange Belongs to All: U-Haul Suit Argues Rival Public Storage Cannot Claim the Color
- 2Continuing Consolidation: The Biggest Legal Tech M&As of 2024
- 3FTC Announces HSR Final Rulemaking Impacting Premerger Filings
- 4NJ Cut Down on Open Judgeships in 2024, But Dozens of Vacancies Linger
- 5How to Add PR When You’ve Already Taken an ‘L’
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250