- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Meanwhile: Judge Ellis pimp slaps Honest Bob's Manafort trial AGAIN, ends court early
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:30 pm
LINK
Who will give me odds he dismisses this case at some point?
quote:
Paul Manafort‘s third day on trial over charges of bank fraud and tax evasion was cut a bit short on Thursday after government attorneys made the same mistake twice in a row.
quote:
Static filled the courtroom as the longest bench conference of the day ensued. Upon returning to Ayliff’s testimony, the jury learned that the issue had been deferred until Friday–if ever. Then, Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye asked about another term of art contained on federal tax forms.
quote:
Judge Ellis, who was already standing by this point, advised Ayliff to wait and announced the court would recess early. After the jury left, Ellis took a few minutes to tell the press and public all about the bench conference. As it turns out, not only was Ayliff a non-noticed witness being asked to give the equivalent of expert testimony, but the prosecution and defense had already agreed on what the term “financial interest” meant. Moreover, this agreement was provided on a proposed–and approved–jury instruction. That is, not only was Ayliff not an expert and not a noticed expert as necessitated by the Federal Rules of Evidence–but his testimony had the potential to derail an already-agreed-upon definition of the term(s) in question. This, Ellis said, could have “confused or clouded” things for the jury.
quote:
When prosecutors addressed Manafort's relationship with Ukrainian "oligarchs," he told them to knock it off. Prosecutors are inferring that Manafort associates himself with "despicable people and therefore he's despicable," he said. "That's not the American way." Descriptions of Manafort's $15,000 ostrich-leather jacket, the $6 million in cash he put toward real estate and his $900,000 in purchases at a New York boutique also left the judge unimpressed. He may not like fancy-pants lawyers, but fancy pants in America are not against the law. "The government doesn't want to prosecute somebody because they wear nice clothes, do they?" Ellis asked. "Let's move on."
Who will give me odds he dismisses this case at some point?
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:33 pm to bamarep
quote:
As it turns out, not only was Ayliff a non-noticed witness being asked to give the equivalent of expert testimony
What does "non-noticed" mean?
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:35 pm to bamarep
What a fricking shite-show.
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:36 pm to bamarep
quote:I'm betting when the defense makes its customary directed verdict motion for acquittal, the motion will be granted....with prejudice.
Who will give me odds he dismisses this case at some point?
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:38 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
What does "non-noticed" mean?
It means he was added to the witness list at the last moment and the opposing attorney wasn't given reasonable time to prepare. It can be allowed or not, depending on individual circumstances
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:40 pm to bamarep
Question to trial attorneys: Are these types of mistakes common? If they are, does the Judge so frequently reprimand the Prosecution publicly? I mean, I know the jury isn't supposed to be privy to this info but, lets be real, you know some on the jury are reading on their phones about this trial and see this stuff. Seems this is headed for a mistrial, no?
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:42 pm to bamarep
quote:
Who will give me odds he dismisses this case at some point?
Maybe so, but the judge’s efforts to strongly enforce rules of evidence and courtroom conduct are pretty typical of most federal judges.
It’s the attitude of the jurors that really matters and there’s no telling how they’ll interpret the evidence presented.
Remember that the prosecutors have the home court advantage, so to speak.
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:42 pm to Robin Masters
Ellis has no patience with this case. There's no doubt about that.
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:44 pm to bamarep
I don't think he'll dismiss the case.
But it is obvious just how incompetent this prosecutorial team really is.
But it is obvious just how incompetent this prosecutorial team really is.
This post was edited on 8/3/18 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:45 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:I disagree. I think the prosecution was using him as an "expert" witness but was "not-noticed" or approved as an expert witness
It means he was added to the witness list at the last moment
quote:
non-noticed witness being asked to give the equivalent of expert testimony
If the witness was Manafort's "book keeper" he doesn't necessarily have the knowledge of a CPA.
ETA: I could be completely wrong with my assumption though
This post was edited on 8/3/18 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:45 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I'm betting when the defense makes its customary directed verdict motion for acquittal, the motion will be granted....with prejudice.
The judge would REALLY have to think that a miscarriage of justice was taking place to take the matter out of the hands of the jury, especially in a politically charged case such as this.
Odds are against a directed verdict.
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:45 pm to Champagne
quote:
But it is obvious just how incompetent this prosecutorial team really is.
They are a lot of things, incompetent isn't one of them
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:46 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Are these types of mistakes common?
Are these mistakes or is the prosecution trying to slide stuff by hoping the judge doesn't catch it?
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:47 pm to Champagne
Better to get a not guilty verdict than a dismissal.
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:47 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
incompetent isn't one of them
What would you call this?
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:50 pm to bamarep
quote:Zero
Who will give me odds he dismisses this case at some point?
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:50 pm to bamarep
He won’t dismiss this cas. That would be far too controversial.
BTW, tonight on WWL at 10, there’s supposedly a story on a Russian connection in N.O. Oligarchs and shite on St Charles Avenue. Woohoo
BTW, tonight on WWL at 10, there’s supposedly a story on a Russian connection in N.O. Oligarchs and shite on St Charles Avenue. Woohoo
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:51 pm to VOR
quote:
tonight on WWL at 10, there’s supposedly a story on a Russian connection in N.O. Oligarchs and shite on St Charles Avenue. Woohoo
the democrat obsession with Russia is a religion
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:52 pm to VOR
quote:There's always shite on St. Charles Avenue.
Oligarchs and shite on St Charles Avenue.
Posted on 8/3/18 at 12:53 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Hard to tell from the (usual) crap reporting, but he was probably listed as a fact witness ... but not as an expert witness. Prosecutor probably asked a “gray area” question, and Defense likely objected that a question was asking for an expert opinion from a “fact witness.” Small potato stuff.
What does "non-noticed" mean?
This post was edited on 8/3/18 at 1:02 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News