Manafort Trial - “Beyound a Reasonable Doubt

[Hagar]

A question for one of our lawyers, or perhaps someone that might have intimate knowledge.

The Manafort Jury has sent a note with three questions for the judge, one of which was could he “Redefine Reasonable Doubt”.  

Now I suspect that question is an indication the jury is leaning one way or the other.  Would someone enlighten us.  I do realize that whatever direction the indicator is, is not a slam dunk.  The jury may still go either way.

And while discussing this trial, it brings up, to me, a flaw in our jury system.  It should be a jury of his peers, but I assume it’s a regular jury.  This case involves things average people know virtually nothing about - foreign companies, investments, shared ownership, shelf companies.  The laws, rules, restrictions and obligations involved in making a decision are Greek to the average person.  Many, myself included, are mentally overwhelmed when trying to decipher “legal mumbo jumbo”, which is why we have to consult an Attorney.  In a perfect world, with a perfect system, this jury would probably be composed of lawyers or foreign investment folks.  Jmo

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

16 hours ago, REBgp said:

A question for one of our lawyers, or perhaps someone that might have intimate knowledge.

The Manafort Jury has sent a note with three questions for the judge, one of which was could he “Redefine Reasonable Doubt”.  

Now I suspect that question is an indication the jury is leaning one way or the other.  Would someone enlighten us.  I do realize that whatever direction the indicator is, is not a slam dunk.  The jury may still go either way.

And while discussing this trial, it brings up, to me, a flaw in our jury system.  It should be a jury of his peers, but I assume it’s a regular jury.  This case involves things average people know virtually nothing about - foreign companies, investments, shared ownership, shelf companies.  The laws, rules, restrictions and obligations involved in making a decision are Greek to the average person.  Many, myself included, are mentally overwhelmed when trying to decipher “legal mumbo jumbo”, which is why we have to consult an Attorney.  In a perfect world, with a perfect system, this jury would probably be composed of lawyers or foreign investment folks.  Jmo

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

You negated your own argument. 

You seem to want a jury of peers but then make it appear that you want legal scholars making the decisions. Those are not peers. The “regular jury” as you call it are the peers. 

If the state can’t convince a bunch of people that don’t understand legal mumbo jumbo, the defendant walks. 

[Hagar]

12 hours ago, tvc184 said:

You negated your own argument. 

You seem to want a jury of peers but then make it appear that you want legal scholars making the decisions. Those are not peers. The “regular jury” as you call it are the peers. 

If the state can’t convince a bunch of people that don’t understand legal mumbo jumbo, the defendant walks. 

See, you’ve confused me already lol.

Actually, what I wanted to know, the jury ask the judge to redefine Reasonable Doubt.  Is that something that would be encouraging to the defense, or to the prosecutor?  Maybe neither one?

[Hagar]

And on the subject of the Manafort trial, imo, CNN has crossed a dangerous line here.  They ask for the release of the names and addresses of the jurors.  Sounds like they want to intimidate them into a guilty verdict.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, REBgp said:

See, you’ve confused me already lol.

Actually, what I wanted to know, the jury ask the judge to redefine Reasonable Doubt.  Is that something that would be encouraging to the defense, or to the prosecutor?  Maybe neither one?

I believe that it could benefit either. It is according to what they have discussed to get to that point. 

From the police academy to today (almost 36 years) I have seen people want reasonable suspicion, probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt defined by percentages. There simply is no way to do so. Those are concepts, not math. Typically a judge will simply read the definition that should have already been given to the jury in the charge. Sometimes they will add some explanation but no really detailed. I think this judge told them what I would say and that is it is not beyond all doubt. But how little doubt?  As an example, let’s say a witness says they saw a blonde white male running away from a scene.  DNA is gathered and it identifies a person that turns out to be a white male who is blonde. So it’s him right? 

 But what if the DNA sample says the odds have someone else having the same DNA would be one in 5 million?  Technically there  might be 50 or 60 people in this country with DNA they cannot be distinguished from the suspect if that was true.  Therefore in an area the size of Houston, there might be one match. What are the odds of it being another white male who is blonde who the prosecution can put In the area of the crime scene? Is it “possible” that it might be another person? Sure  it is likely? Sure... at about the odds of winning the lottery but it is not beyond “all” doubt. Is that a reasonable doubt? Probably not but each juror has to make up his own  mind. But what if the evidence made you believe there was about a 10% chance of innocence, is that reasonable doubt? In my opinion, absolutely.  

I have heard (and given) percentages like reasonable suspicion might be about 20%, probable cause might be around 50% (I have heard some explanations say it has to be greater than 50%... so 51%?.... but I disagree) and beyond a reasonable doubt around 98%.  

You will likely never actually see those in any official writing because it is impossible to define opinions by math and courts won’t do it. 

So why does it matter in this case? We don’t know which way one or more jurors was leaning to ask the question.  Like this scenario above, was a juror saying, I think he is probably guilty but there’s maybe a 15 or 20% chance that he is not. Does 85% sure what he meant guilt? 

 Or perhaps they are about to convict him and one lone juror says that he is not a 100% percent sure of guilt but has a 2% of doubt. Is that “reasonable“? 

[Hagar]

17 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 

Out of likes, but thank you tvc.  I’ve been on two jurys, but never on a criminal case.