Manafort transcripts reveal jury drama

WASHINGTON – On the eve of closing arguments in the financial fraud trial of Paul Manafort, a federal judge reviewed a complaint that one juror and possibly others had disparaged the defense team’s case, raising questions about whether there should be a declaration of a mistrial.

The drama was revealed in transcripts of previously sealed conferences involving U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, prosecutors and Manafort’s defense team who had grown increasingly worried that jury room commentary during breaks in the trial had compromised the panel.

As is standard courtroom practice, jurors in the Manafort trial were instructed not to discuss the case with one another until after both the defense and the prosecution had offered all of their evidence and presented final arguments.

Behind closed doors and during lengthy conferences at the bench, Ellis and attorneys huddled for hours.

The judge questioned each of the jurors in private, including one panelist who had raised a complaint and a second juror who had allegedly made comments critical of the defense. The second juror, a woman, suggested that her comments had been mischaracterized.

Ultimately, Ellis said he felt satisfied that the case could move ahead.

“What I know thus far doesn’t warrant declaring a mistrial,” Ellis told the attorneys Aug. 14.

In the end, the jury returned guilty verdicts on eight counts and remained deadlocked on 10 others.

While prosecutors proposed that the judge admonish the panel that they refrain from discussing the case until all the evidence was in, defense attorneys had pushed for Ellis to intervene.