Judge tells Manafort jury to keep deliberating after it asks about impact of not reaching verdict on

[avebury]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/paul-manafort-trial-jury/index.html


The judge in the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort urged the jury Tuesday to keep deliberating after it asked what happens if it can't reach consensus on one of 18 counts.

"It is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so," Judge T.S. Ellis said. He encouraged each juror to make their own decisions on each count, but if some were in the minority on a decision, they could think about what the other jurors believe.

Give "deference" to each other and "listen to each others' arguments."

"You're the exclusive judges," he added. "Take all the time which you feel is necessary."

The jurors asked about the impact of not agreeing on all counts.

"If we cannot come to a consensus for a single count, how can we fill in the verdict sheet?" the jury wrote in a note to Ellis.

Without jurors present, Ellis also told judge told the courtroom that he will not ask the jury for a partial verdict at this time.

[uponit7771]

1. That doesn't mean they've reached guilty on the 17 right? Thx in advance

Making sure the die is set before getting happy

[EffieBlack]

2. It sounds to me like they have

[avebury]

3. I find it improbable that Manafort could walk on all counts

but Mueller's team has had an uphill battle with that judge and the way the judge basically threw the evidence at the jury and told them to figure it out.

It sounds like the jury must be close to coming back with their votes.

[uponit7771]

5. Yeah, think I heard that last night the judge didn't allow the prosecution to elaborate on evidence

... they presented during trial.

There's no way for Red Hatters to say this was rigged if he was guilty on those counts, Red Don wills till commute his sentence so he can still plead the fifth but it'll look horrible .. as if that means a damn thing these days.

[elleng]

4. Doesn't mean they've reached 'guilty' or 'not guilty' on 17 counts,

may have agreed to 'guilty' on some and 'not guilty' on others, just ONE they've not agreed on.

[uponit7771]

6. Got it

[GusBob]

7. Wouldnt that be a "partial verdict" ?

asking 'cuz I am dumb

he said no partial verdict

[triron]

8. That's correct.

[elleng]

9. They can decide differently on each count,

judge doesn't want 'partial verdict' at this time, is what I think he said, that is, wants them to try harder to agree on the one count they're not yet able to agree on. 'Partial verdict' would be decided on 17 and not decided on 1.

[triron]

10. Not according to wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_verdict

[elleng]

12. 'The term may also be used in criminal or civil procedure for when the judge permits a jury

to return verdicts on fewer than all of the counts it has to decide, though it has not yet determined the remainder (and, it is possible, may never so determine).'

[Loki Liesmith]

11. No

He said he’s not ready for a partial verdict at this time.