In Closing Argument, Manafort Defense Goes After Rick Gates' Credibility
Defense attorneys described the government as “so desperate” to get Manafort, that they cut a plea deal with Gates that might allow him to walk free.
August 15, 2018 at 12:18 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
In closing arguments Wednesday in the financial fraud trial of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman's defense attorney sought to undo the prosecution's entire case with just two words: Rick Gates.
The lawyer, Kevin Downing, cast Manafort's longtime business partner and right-hand man as someone who repeatedly lied, and whose testimony could not be trusted. “He lied to you,” Downing told jurors, reminding them that Gates embezzled money from Manafort.
Downing, arguing the prosecution's case was built on Gates' discredited testimony, at least twice described the government as “so desperate” to get Manafort, that they cut a plea deal with Gates, which might allow him to walk free.
“He was flawless on direct, but on cross-examination he fell apart,” Downing said.
Downing also touched on Gates' marital infidelity from 10 years ago, returning to defense claims during cross-examination that Gates led a “secret life.”
“I'm not the moral police here,” Downing said. But Gates embezzled money from Manafort to finance that tryst. Gates was “living beyond his means,” Downing said.
Outside the courthouse, Downing told reporters that Manafort was “very happy” with the day's proceedings. “His defense team got to address the jury, point out the shortcomings in the government's case and explain that the government has not met their burden of proof,” Downing said.
He added that he believed Manafort's chances with the jury were “very good.”
Downing's final pitch to jurors came after the lead prosecutor sought to head off any challenges to Gates' credibility, telling jurors the evidence was “more than sufficient” to convict the former Trump campaign chairman on financial fraud charges.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the star witness in this case is the documents,” the prosecutor, Greg Andres, said.
In a brief rebuttal to the defense's closing, Andres again stressed the prosecution's evidence. Andres argued that the defense was trying to pin blame on Gates when, in fact, the many emails and documents submitted as evidence all pointed to Manafort's guilt.
“They haven't explained the dozens and dozens of docs,” Andres said.
Andres urged jurors to consider evidence suggesting that Manafort directed Gates to commit crimes, including an email in which Manafort described his longtime deputy as the “quarterback” in handling a loan application.
“Guess who the coach of that team is?” Andres said. “Mr. Manafort.”
Later, responding to the defense's claim that several officials were named but never called in the prosecution's case, Andres asked whether anyone thought more witnesses and documents were necessary. He suggested that the defense was trying to distract the jurors and make them ignore their own common sense.
“Mr. Manafort is guilty,” Andres said, “and guilty as charged.”
Earlier, in his closing argument, Andres said the prosecution was not asking jurors to take Gates' testimony at face value. “We're not asking you to like him, either,” he said, urging jurors to instead test Gates' testimony and “verify it against other testimony.”
“That's how you know if you can trust the testimony of Mr. Gates,” Andres said.
Andres, leafing through white and orange pages in his binder, also downplayed the cooperation agreement Gates struck with prosecutors when he turned on his former mentor, a deal that defense attorney Kevin Downing highlighted in the cross-examination.
“We invite you” to look at that deal, Andres told jurors Wednesday. “One day, Mr. Gates will be sentenced for his crimes,” he said, emphasizing that a federal judge in Washington, D.C., will determine Gates' sentence, not prosecutors.
Andres also referenced a point in the trial when Downing said Gates had his “hand in the cookie jar” while stealing money from Manafort.
“That wasn't a cookie jar,” Andres said. “That was a huge dumpster of money in foreign bank accounts.”
At the outset of his closing argument, Andres broke down the tax and bank fraud charges into two stages of Manafort's life: The period between 2010 and 2014, when money flowed in from his political consulting work in Ukraine, and the following years when that income stream dried up. He repeatedly told jurors Manafort was not above the law.
“Mr. Manafort knew the law, and he violated it anyway,” Andres said.
In the years between 2010 and 2014, when former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was in power, Manafort falsified tax returns and hid money in foreign accounts that he failed to disclose to the U.S. government, Andres said. After Yanukovych fell out of power, Manafort made material misrepresentations to banks to secure millions of dollars in loans, Andres said.
“Mr. Manafort lied to keep money when he had it and he lied to get more money when he didn't,” Andres said. “This is a case about Mr. Manafort and his lies.”
“When you follow the trail of Mr. Manafort's money,” he added, “it is littered with lies.”
Early in the trial, prosecutors called witnesses who sold Manafort high-end suits and luxury cars, along with contractors who had upgraded his properties. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia repeatedly denied prosecutors requests to show photographs of Manafort's pricey purchases, noting that “Mr. Manafort is not on trial for having a lavish lifestyle.”
“This case is not about Mr. Manafort's wealth,” Andres said, adding that it is “not a crime to have nice things or wealth.”
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
The New Federal Sentencing Factor in Downstate New York? Prison Conditions
Trending Stories
- 1Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 2For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 3As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 4General Warrants and ESI
- 5GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
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