New Jury Note Suggests Verdict Is Near in Paul Manafort Trial
Judge Ellis urged the jurors to continue their deliberations and strive for consensus on the 18 charges Manafort is facing.
August 21, 2018 at 12:54 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Nearly two hours into the fourth day of deliberations, jurors in the Paul Manafort trial emerged with a question suggesting they were close to handing down a verdict on the tax and bank fraud charges the special counsel brought against the former Trump campaign chairman.
“Your honor, if we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill in the jury verdict form for that count, and what does that mean for the final verdict? We will need another form, please,” the note stated. The note, which was read aloud in court by Judge T.S. Ellis III, was signed by the jury's unidentified foreperson.
Ellis urged the jurors to continue their deliberations and strive for consensus on the 18 charges Manafort is facing. Before the jurors took their seats in the courtroom, Ellis told the prosecution and defense lawyers that he might soon accept a partial verdict if the jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision on one or more counts.
“I'm not going to ask for a partial verdict at this time,” Ellis told the lawyers, before jurors entered the room. “It's not appropriate.”
He said he would also ask jurors where they stood on most of the counts, though he did not specifically indicate when.
“This note would suggest that I know the answer, but am not sure,” Ellis said.
The note arrived with a knock at the courtroom door at around 11:20 a.m. “We have a question from the jury,” Ellis told lawyers, before allowing jurors in.
He allowed lawyers a five-minute recess to look at the jury's note. Prosecutors left the room while Manafort's attorneys huddled around the former Trump campaign chairman.
Manafort's lead defense attorney, Kevin Downing, picked up on the jurors' request for a new verdict form, and suggested the form include a third option for the jurors on each count: “hung.”
“The third option should be 'hung' as to each count,” Downing said, adding that jurors should not be misled to believe that “hung on each count would not be appropriate.”
The lead prosecutor, Greg Andres, objected to that suggestion.
Ellis said he understood Downing's point, but sided with Andres. After the recess, the judge did not provide the jurors a new form, nor did he directly address that request.
Ellis told lawyers that he needed to be careful not to give any instructions that would unduly influence the jury—or “cross that line,” as he put it.
“The main reason … or the main principle that I need to adhere to,” he said, “is not to say or do anything that is coercive.”
Ellis also made an appeal for reporters to not rush out of the room. Ellis said he appreciated the media's desire to report on developments in the trial as quickly as possible but wants to avoid disrupting proceedings that play out in front of the jury.
He directed reporters to a spillover room on the sixth floor, three floors down from his courtroom.
“You can rush in and out of that one as much as you please,” he said
Jurors were expected to receive their lunches at 12:15. Ellis told the jurors they could either work through their lunches or take a break.
READ MORE:
Manafort Jury's First Questions Included Defining 'Reasonable Doubt'
Manafort Prosecutors Used the Few Tools Available to Confront Tough Judges
DOJ Tells Court: Class Lawyers Already Got $60M in Fees. Now They Want More?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCOVID-19 Vaccine Suit Against United Airlines Hangs on Right-to-Sue Letter Date
3 minute readLavish 'Lies' Led to Investors Being Fleeced in Nine-Figure International Crypto Scam
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Three East Coast Midsize Firms Partner to Create Cohen Vaughan
- 2Goodwin, Leaning Into IP Work, Hires 2 Lateral Partners in NY
- 3Weil Lures DOJ Antitrust Lawyer, As Government Lateral Moves Pick Up Before Inauguration Day
- 4Lawyers Share Concerns, Predictions Over How Bondi’s Loyalism to Trump May Impact DOJ
- 5As Bonus Pools Expand, Challenges Grow in Partner Compensation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250