where's his patek collection? he's spending millions of dollars on fashion, and the one item which is quintessential flashy old rich guy item, he really only bought that one ****ty watch?

i'm thinking he has a ghost collection of top vintage watches. he probably bought them with cash and buried them in the woods, and they're like all on winders attached to a car battery because he knows he's going to be away for a while and he needs them to be safe, i mean honestly where the **** is this guy's real watch collection?

like this judge is probably right: manafort is keeping his grails untraceable. mueller needs to get his team metal detectors and shovels and tell them to start studying the dirt in manafort's shed to determine likely dig spots.

He doesn’t have to be “‘a deplorable” to be biased against the prosecution in this particular case. That said I learned a long time ago that you can’t judge what’s actually going on in a trial based on media reports about it.

Sounds like the judge is working overtime to make sure the jury doesn't convict.

We're just a nation of laws!

I like it. Do juries ever fall for that garbage defense? I mean, seriously, if criminals were too smart to leave evidence, nobody would ever be convicted of anything.

According to MSNBC, the jury asked for cake to celebrate a member's birthday. Supposedly, Birthday Cake Theory favors the prosecution.

Yeah, I heard that on the radio as well. Based on my experience I call absolute bull**** on that. Trying to read what a jury will do based on things like that is like trying to read tea leaves. That is just something that some television pundit said because they want to sound smart. I’ll add something else as well, my experience was more with violent felonies than with this type of white collar case, but I never wanted a jury that was having a good time and laughing and messing around. That was never a good sign for me because to me that meant they weren’t taking it seriously enough.

Go try and reason with a die hard Trump supporter

In my experience Juries often fall for garbage defenses, and you truly never know what a jury is going to do. I’ve secured convictions on cases where my evidence was not that strong, and I have had acquittals (or more commonly convictions on lesser offenses) for cases where I thought I was a lock to obtain a top count conviction. You never know what a jury will do. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it.

A woman I knew who was clerking for a Federal judge & attended a T15 law school once told me she had never disagreed with a jury.

Maybe she meant in the tautological since like with the SCOTUS. The chliche being “they don’t get the final say because they’re always right; they’re always right because they get the final say.”

Maybe, though at the time she was talking about juries generally doing a good job. Most legal people would agree with jman, but I wonder if these cases look different to neutral parties and advocates.

Did she miss the OJ trial?

She may have been thinking of her career, she would have been an undergrad at the time.

it worked on law and order when the dope man walked up to the detective and just gave him his dope and said arrest me. the cop testified that it happened exactly as such and the jury refused to believe it could go down like that. good episode imo.

anyway, this dude is a lock to walk. and the the "nothing matters" will be complete.

Juries actually don't get the final say. A district court judge (in a civil case) can direct a verdict one way or another, regardless of what a jury concludes. (A judge can't direct a guilty verdict in a criminal case. According to wiki; "In a criminal case in the United States, once the prosecution has closed its case, the defendant may move for a directed verdict. If granted, the verdict will be "not guilty". The prosecution may never seek a directed verdict of guilty, as the defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense and rebut the prosecution's case and have a jury determine guilt or innocence.")

The way you can identify the good courtroom sketch artists is by looking at the degree to which they accurately portray his forward head posture.

I don’t think that’s true, its still more likely to be a guilty verdict than a not-guilty verdict based on what’s been reported so far, it’s just that everyone should beware the prognosticators who are sure of what the outcome will be. Hung jury is also a possibility.

I don’t think so. the neutrals that I know (judges, court officers, court reporters, court clerks, others watching trials) often feel the same way. In addition, as I said I have had cases that were circumstantial and weak which I thought would likely be a NG and obtained a conviction, and vice versa. In my area the defense bar and the prosecution get along pretty well and we openly discuss our cases, and i know that many defense attorneys are also often surprised by winning a case that they didn’t htink they had a shot to win. The one thing I will say for your friend though is that if she is clerking for a federal judge with a heavy criminal caseload, well those are almost always convictions (the feds have like a 99 percent conviction rate or something crazy like that), so if she just always predicts its going to be a guilty, that could explain why she always agrees with the jury.

No socks?

He apparently doesn't do socks. It's the fashion in the circles in which he (used to) travel.

tricky ricky gates on the stand rn

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...ial/index.html

No shoe laces, no socks. Standard procedure.