The judge told the jurors that they had to rely on their memory to link different exhibits to the charges they related to and similarly had to rely on what they remembered of the evidence to understand what a shell corporation was. The judge answered the reasonable doubt question by saying it was “a doubt based on reason” but adding that, “the government is not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.” Perhaps the jurors were helped by this answer, but they were certainly not helped by the judge’s response to their other questions. One was to ask for a definition of “shell corporation,” a term that was much used in the trial, and the other was to ask for some kind of road map linking the documentary evidence they had in the jury room to the various counts of the indictment, something the government had wanted to do in presenting its case and the judge did not allow. The other two questions seemed designed to aid the jury in its understanding of the evidence. One was the high standard of certainty required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the other was the claim that Manafort reasonably thought he did not have to report his foreign bank accounts under the FBAR Act because after 2011 he and his wife each owned a 50 percent share. Two of the questions focused on issues that Manafort’s defense counsel had honed in on in their argument to the jury. The jury’s effort to decide on the evidence, with due respect for Manafort’s presumption of innocence, is suggested by the questions the jury asked.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |