The evidence against Manifort is overwhelming, so overwhelming that Manafort's defense team didn't call a single witness. Why would that be? My theory is because any witness they called would work against them. Now, that's damning right there.
...if they were hung say for example 7-5, I'd say yes........ but if it's 11-1 Manafort might get a brief reprieve but the prosecution were surely retry, as they should. ...regardless, even without Gates' testimony there was a mountain of evidence against Manafort...it should be a slam dunk, but you just never know.
You're thinking of a murder trial. Some lesser trials don't require 12 guilty votes. They can be convicted in those trials with less guilty votes.
Yeah, because it would be another 6 months that he could smell the sweet air on the outside. Also, it would mean another 6 months where he wouldn't have to eat prison food or wear prison clothes or hear angry random shouts from other prisoners all through the day. And then there's the fact that he could see people on the street, eat hot dogs from a vendor, look at good looking women all dressed up and visit with people who weren't prisoners or guards.
The first question asked about requirements for filing FBAR reports The judge reread the jury the laws regarding FBAR reports The second question asked about the definition of shell companies and their filing requirements The judge declined to telll them the definition of shell companies and their filing requirements. Said they need to rely on their reccolections. The third question asked about the defintion of reasonable doubt The judge reiterated the definition of reasonable doubt to the jury, and that the government is not required to prove quilt beyond all possible doubt The last question asked the judge whether the exhibit list could be ammended to reflect the indicment counts The judge declined to ammend the exhibit list
