Manafort judge apologizes for outburst
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The judge overseeing Paul Manafort’s trial, who has berated prosecutors daily for perceived missteps and slights, told the jury Thursday to ignore one of his outbursts, saying he was “probably wrong.”
U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III, a 78year-old jurist with a reputation for being tough on lawyers in his courtroom, showed none of the temper he’s flashed throughout the trial, now in its second week in Alexandria, Va., and instead instructed the jury to disregard his remarks made the day before excoriating prosecutors for allowing an expert government witness to sit in the courtroom before he testified.
Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, is accused of bank fraud and tax evasion. It’s the first trial to emerge from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether any of Trump’s associates conspired with those efforts, though Manafort’s case is not about those issues.
During Wednesday’s dust-up, Assistant U.S. attorney Uzo Asonye pointed out the judge had previously told prosecutors the witness could sit in the courtroom, and the judge shot back: “I don’t care what the transcript said. Maybe I made a mistake. Don’t do it again.”
Overnight, prosecutors filed a motion with the court asking the judge to tell the jury to ignore that criticism.
“While mistakes are a natural part of the trial process, the mistake here prejudiced the government by conveying to the jury that the government had acted improperly and had violated court rules or procedures,” the prosecutors wrote.
On Thursday morning, the judge told the jury, “I may well have been wrong,” adding that he had not read the court transcript. “I was probably wrong,” Ellis said.
“This robe doesn’t make me any more than a human,” he said. “Any criticism of counsel should be put aside — it doesn’t have anything to do with this case.”
Ellis’ eruptions have been noticed inside and outside the courtroom. Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics and evidence at New York University, said the judge was right to make a corrective statement to the jurors.