Cooperate or Pray for a Pardon: Advice to Paul Manafort
White collar defense attorneys say the former Trump campaign chairman, found guilty of financial crimes Tuesday, can cooperate or gun for a pardon but must choose one or the other.
August 23, 2018 at 08:55 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Since his indictment last October, Paul Manafort has steadfastly fought the special counsel at every turn as other past advisers of President Donald Trump have struck plea deals, cooperated with investigators and—in the case of Rick Gates—testified for prosecutors in court.
With his conviction Tuesday on tax and bank fraud charges, the former Trump campaign chairman faces the firm prospect of a long prison sentence. And there's more to come as Manafort's defense team readies for another trial, this time in a Washington, D.C., federal court that's set to begin Sept. 17.
Manafort may now find himself at a fork in the road, considering a new course. Indeed, white collar defense lawyers say he has two routes to take: cooperate with the special counsel's office, or angle for a presidential pardon.
Cooperate. If not, pray for a pardon.
“I'd say cooperate,” says Schertler & Onorato's Robert Bennett, a veteran criminal defense attorney in Washington. “Now that you've been convicted, you have a better sense of what you're facing. Make the best possible deal that you can. But if he has a promise of a pardon in his back pocket, with an understanding that he will be pardoned if he does not cooperate, then the strategy makes sense. It's the only explanation for the strategy.”
“You would only go before the firing squad if you were told that, before they pulled the trigger, 'I'm going to put you out of this.' That's the only thing that makes sense for his continuing the fighting,” Bennett added.
Ultimately, Bennett says, defense attorneys have to heed their clients' wishes: “You do essentially what the client wants. That's part of the game.”
For Manafort, the specter of the second trial in Washington, D.C., where he faces a more diverse array of charges, could up the pressure. He might also find more of an uphill climb in the District: The judge overseeing his case, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, has largely sided with the government in pretrial motions, and she also ordered Manafort to jail earlier this year.
Manafort also might find a more liberal pool of jurors in D.C. than in the Eastern District of Virginia.
“The obvious and rational thing would be to make a deal,” says Arent Fox partner Peter Zeidenberg, who served as deputy special counsel in the prosecution of Scooter Libby. “They haven't done that so far, so maybe it's the client, maybe it's another game plan, but the obvious thing would be to cut a deal with the government.”
Don't count on an appeal.
Manafort's attorneys have not publicly indicated whether they will appeal the verdict in the financial fraud trial in Virginia. Nor should they pin their hopes on one, Zeidenberg said.
“That's not going to help. It's very unlikely he would win on an appeal,” he said. “And if he did, it would just mean he'd get another trial. … There weren't any cutting-edge legal issues. There wasn't a question of constitutionality of the statute. This was a cut and dry income tax fraud, garden variety stuff. That's not going to get overturned on appeal.”
The case for fighting it out.
Still, with Manafort already facing the prospect of a hefty prison sentence from his conviction in Virginia, he may have little to lose defending himself at trial in Washington, even with all the challenges that come with that case. A few acquittals could help with the public's perception of him. As for the pardon discussion, duking it out in D.C. could endear him to his audience of one: Trump.
“What do you really have to lose? And [the trial's] so soon. It's not like you have to wait a year for the trial. It's in a few weeks,” said one white-collar defense lawyer, who previously served as a federal prosecutor.
“What he really has, if he has anything, it doesn't matter if he gives it up three weeks from now or today if he has stuff Mueller wants,” the former prosecutor added. “The only thing he has to lose is whatever he's paying his attorneys.”
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 readFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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