USA TODAY International Edition
Key themes face the Manafort jury
Credibility of ex-partner Gates central to case
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Jurors now hold Paul Manafort’s fate.
The former campaign manager for President Donald Trump could spend the rest of his life behind bars, walk free or anything in between. Over the course of the 12-day trial, jurors heard in excruciating detail the specifics of Manafort’s alleged scheme as his lawyers worked to poke holes in the case.
Here are some of the points that could lay heavy on the jury’s mind and help sway the case.
Credibility of Rick Gates
Manafort’s attorneys took direct aim at the credibility of Rick Gates, Manafort’s former partner and the government’s star witness, multiple times throughout the trial – even highlighting it again in closing arguments.
Gates pleaded guilty earlier this year to conspiracy and lying to the FBI as part of a deal requiring him to testify against Manafort.
During his testimony, Gates admitted to stealing money from Manafort and falsifying documents for him. He even admitted some of the money was used to quietly finance a secret relationship with a mistress in London.
He described his role in the alleged plot, falsifying loan documents to help Manafort acquire millions and the elaborate operation he and Manafort allegedly structured in Cyprus to use shell companies to secretly accept millions of dollars for their work in Ukraine.
But Manafort’s attorneys painted Gates as the true villain and aimed to discredit his testimony by discrediting his character. They suggested that Gates – not Manafort – controlled the foreign bank accounts used to hide millions of dollars from federal tax authorities. While Gates is obviously a flawed witness, prosecutors across the U.S. have used much worse, said Pat Cotter, a longtime white-collar defense attorney and former federal prosecutor who worked to prosecute legendary New York mobster John Gotti.
Cotter said he’d once used a witness involved in 19 murders, and for the most part, jurors seem to understand that it’s needed.
“Think about it: If you need someone to take you through the sewer, you’re going to have to use a rat because rats know the sewers,” he said.
Quick pace of trial
White-collar cases like that of Manafort are almost always confusing and convoluted.
Jurors without backgrounds in finance often have difficulty following the intricacies of foreign banking, shell companies and falsified bank loans. Hundreds of documents were displayed before the jury, and more than two dozen people testified.
But the quick pace of Manafort’s trial could make their job even harder.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III’s courtroom has a reputation for its “rocket docket,” and that kept up during Manafort’s proceedings. Ellis rushed prosecutors through the examinations of some of their witnesses while attempting to portray Manafort’s lavish lifestyle, which they contend was supported using wire transfers from secret offshore accounts to hide his acquired wealth.
No case by defense
It might have seemed a bit weird that Manafort’s attorneys didn’t call a single witness or offer any evidence to vouch for him. Could that make a difference to the jury?
Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director who worked under Mueller at FBI, said Manafort’s attorneys could have left the jury thinking there wasn’t any defense at all for the accusations.
“They’re left with questioning what’s the counterargument here because there was no case made that really suggests his innocence,” Hosko said.
Cotter said this is a tactic used frequently by defense attorneys because they’re relying on prosecutors, who have the burden of proving their case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Defense attorneys many times simply poke holes in these cases instead of providing new witnesses or evidence.
There’s a school of thought behind this reasoning, Cotter says: “If you don’t have a terrific witness or piece of evidence, don’t submit it.”
“You run the risk of looking pathetic,” he added.
Public opinion of Mueller, FBI
While Manafort’s trial does not directly deal with his role as Trump’s campaign manager, the president’s shadow has covered this case from the beginning.
The trial is the first brought by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and is widely thought to be an important test for him and his team.
But could the public’s trust in the FBI and in Mueller bleed over into the jury’s decision-making?
Tweets from the president mixed with constant attacks from Republican leadership and Fox News has altered how the public views the FBI and Mueller.
The bureau’s reputation was put to the test with the Hillary Clinton email investigation, then again when it opened an investigation into any collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. It again was accused of bias with text messages that showed highlevel agent Peter Strzok, who was working for Mueller, sent anti-Trump text messages.