Manafort Already 'Punished Substantially,' Defense Lawyers Say
The former Trump campaign chairman's attorneys said a significant sentence would likely amount to life in prison.
February 25, 2019 at 09:08 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Paul Manafort should receive a “less stringent” sentence in Washington, D.C., his attorneys told a federal judge Monday in a memo that painted the former Trump campaign chairman as far from the “hardened criminal” that federal prosecutors portrayed.
In a sentencing memo filed Monday, Manafort's attorneys told Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that Manafort should serve no more than 10 years for his conduct. They urged the court to “exercise its broad discretion” to avoid banishing him to what will likely be a lifetime in prison.
“Mr. Manafort has been punished substantially, including the forfeiture of most of his assets,” his attorneys wrote. “In light of his age and health concerns, a significant additional period of incarceration will likely amount to a life sentence for a first time offender.”
Manafort is set to be sentenced March 13 in Washington in what will be the second in a pair of hearings that will determine the longtime lobbyist's fate. Jackson will sentence him for two counts of conspiracy that he pleaded guilty to in September, one count of conspiracy against the U.S. and the other related to a witness-tampering effort.
Manafort faces a maximum of 10 years combined for those two counts, his attorneys said. Still, at 69 years old, Manafort faces the possibility of a lifetime in prison. He's set to be sentenced for separate crimes in Alexandria, Virginia, where the government told a judge they support a sentence of 19.5 years to 24.5 years.
In their 47-page memo Monday, Manafort's lawyers argued that his sentences in D.C. and Virginia should run concurrently, because the underlying conduct in both criminal cases was related.
In seeking a lighter sentence, Manafort's attorneys wrote that their client accepted responsibility for his crimes in Washington, D.C. But they also painted him as someone who was unfairly prosecuted, arguing he was charged for crimes that weren't central to special counsel Robert Mueller III's investigation into possible links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign in the 2016 U.S. election.
They also described how some of Manafort's charges stemmed from the failure to notify the Justice Department about his foreign lobbying work for Ukraine, which they admitted was a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. But they pointed to how rarely the Justice Department enforced the law before Manafort and described how his initial failure to file paperwork, which would have ordinarily been handled “administratively,” evolved into a criminal case with “a magnitude of harshness previously unknown in the enforcement of FARA.”
“[I]t is fair to say that, but for the appointment of the Special Counsel and his Office's decision to pursue Mr. Manafort for a rarely prosecuted FARA violation, Mr. Manafort would not have been indicted in the District of Columbia,” they wrote.
Manafort is represented by Kevin Downing, Thomas Zehnle, and Epstein Becker & Green attorney Richard Westling.
Special counsel prosecutors told Jackson last week that Manafort should serve a lengthy prison term for the “bold” criminal actions he orchestrated for more than a decade. Prosecutors said they did not support a downward departure from an estimated sentencing guideline range of 17.5 years to 22 years in prison. The government did not present a single mitigating factor.
Manafort also will be sentenced on March 8 in Alexandria, Virginia, for financial fraud convictions. In that case, the government has supported a sentence of 19.5 years to 24.5 years in prison. The government on Saturday did not take a position on whether the sentence Jackson imposes on March 13 should run on top of or concurrent with the Virginia sentence.
Under a September plea deal, prosecutors had agreed to recommend that Manafort serve his two sentences concurrently. But Jackson freed prosecutors from that obligation when she found that prosecutors had proven “by a preponderance of the evidence” that Manafort intentionally lied to federal authorities on a variety of matters, when he was required to cooperate.
Prosecutors said they will make a recommendation on whether the sentence should be consecutive or concurrent to charges he was convicted on in Virginia, once that sentence is imposed.
Read the sentencing memo here:
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 AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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