• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

Need some more info, please. I posted this earlier in the thread and was told I was in error. Where is there a link?

See post #95
No link, it's just a fact. Prosecutors can't retry unless a hung jury. Otherwise, it's Double Jeopardy.

Edit: Ah, prosecutors can retry if a guilty verdict is overturned on appeal. But then they are limited to the topic of appeal.

Edit: I'm going to quit while I'm behind. I can't speak to the above accuracy, due to not have concurrent sources.
 
Last edited:
No link, it's just a fact. Prosecutors can't retry unless a hung jury. Otherwise, it's Double Jeopardy.

Just one knucklehead.....
 
[h=1]Manafort trial Day 8: Judge concedes fault after Mueller protest[/h]
The federal judge overseeing the Paul Manafort trial conceded Thursday morning that he made a mistake in chastising special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors a day earlier in front of the jury.

Addressing the jurors before prosecutors called their first witness of the day, U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis said he “may well have been wrong” on Wednesday when he slammed the Mueller team for allowing an expert witness from the IRS to remain in the courtroom while other witnesses were testifying.
 
Double jeopardy applies to the prohibition of a jurisdiction charging a person a second time for the same acts after a valid trial has been conducted. However, both parties have the right to appeal the verdict based on procedural grounds (regardless of the outcome) and seek to have the trial invalidated - in which case the higher court(s) have a choice of throwing out the verdict and ordering a retrial OR dismissing the charges.


If the judges actions are sufficiently prejudicial to have created an unfair trial, either side can appeal.
Interesting. So there's a procedural exception? I think Rexedgar is right: We need some definitive source(s).
 
Prosecution can't appeal ...
It is always amusing to find people making categorical assertions like this regarding anything that relates to the law. I’d always recommend anyone addressing any legal question start of by always saying “it depends…”

Though it is certainly true Mueller may absolutely not appeal Manafort’s acquittal (due to the Constitutional preclusion against “double jeopardy”) he could use the same evidence to prosecute different charges against Manafort. Mueller can appeal certain actions or decisions by the court, for example a dismissal of charges on certain grounds or the judge suppressing certain evidence, judicial determinations the defendant is unfit to stand trial or be sentenced are appelable too (these are “interlocutory” appeals –during trial).

After a final judgment prosecutors can appeal plain or fundamental error, questions of subject-matter jurisdiction and constitutional issues.
An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial’s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

The appellate court determines whether errors occurred in applying the law at the lower court level. It generally will reverse a trial court only for an error of law. Not every error of law, however, is cause for a reversal. Some are harmless errors that did not prejudice the rights of the parties to a fair trial. For example, in a criminal case a higher court may conclude that the trial judge gave a legally improper instruction to the jury, but if the mistake were minor and in the opinion of the appellate court had no bearing on the jury's finding, the appellate court may hold it a harmless error and let a guilty verdict stand.

However, an error of law, such as admitting improper evidence, may be determined to be harmful and therefore reversible error. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ducation_network/how_courts_work/appeals.html
 
Interesting. So there's a procedural exception? I think Rexedgar is right: We need some definitive source(s).

After doing some reading it would seem that I am mistaken. While I did not find anything definitive regarding federal courts, in general the appeal rights of the prosecution is quite limited in most jurisdictions. As best as I can deduce:

1) The prosecution can file appeals DURING the trial on specific actions or rulings by the judge, but not after the verdict is rendered.

2) The prosecution can file appeals to a higher courts ruling that was made on behalf of the convicted (presumably originally initiated by an appeal of the defendant).

While it is very likely that the prosecution has no right of appeal if the defendant is found not guilty, it is unclear if an appeals court has the ability to grant an appeal under certain circumstances.
 
Last edited:
It is always amusing to find people making categorical assertions like this regarding anything that relates to the law. I’d always recommend anyone addressing any legal question start of by always saying “it depends…”

Though it is certainly true Mueller may absolutely not appeal Manafort’s acquittal (due to the Constitutional preclusion against “double jeopardy”) he could use the same evidence to prosecute different charges against Manafort. Mueller can appeal certain actions or decisions by the court, for example a dismissal of charges on certain grounds or the judge suppressing certain evidence, judicial determinations the defendant is unfit to stand trial or be sentenced are appelable too (these are “interlocutory” appeals –during trial).

After a final judgment prosecutors can appeal plain or fundamental error, questions of subject-matter jurisdiction and constitutional issues.

The bolded statements are contradictory. Either the final judgement (acquittal) can or cannot be appealed on the grounds of certain matters of law - my initial take was that trial (and thus finding of not guilty) can be invalidated. No longer.

As much as I'd like to agree with your belief that prosecutors can appeal plain or fundamental error AFTER final judgement (which is what I believed), further research suggests not. Only during trial can an appeal be lodged (or an appeal as response to a higher court finding).
 
Last edited:
Please share.

"A not guilty verdict on all charges normally ends a criminal case-the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal. A guilty verdict on some or all charges, however, doesn’t necessarily mean the case is over."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/appealing-conviction.html

"Usually only the defendant in a criminal trial may appeal. The prosecutor may not appeal if the defendant is acquitted (found "not guilty") at trial. The prosecutor may not put the same defendant on trial for the same charge with the same evidence. This kind of retrial is known as "double jeopardy." Double jeopardy is expressly prohibited under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
However, prior to or during a criminal trial, a prosecutor may be able to appeal certain rulings, such as when a judge has ordered that some evidence be "suppressed." Appeals that take place in the midst of a trial are called interlocutory appeals. In most cases, appeals can be very complicated; the appellate court tends to enforce technical rules for proceeding with an appeal..."

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/appeals-appellate-courts-and-costs.html

On the other hand, I have not been able to get a consistent answer on this question because a) it depends on which state and b) I have found no specific explanation exclusive to federal courts.


I know an appeals court attorney, I will ask her.
 
Probably you. Take your Mueller rose-colored glasses off. They just started, and are already looking like they failed law school. Mueller does NOT have the impeccable record that people think.

As he investigates Trump's aides, Robert Mueller's record shows surprising flaws

It's a ****ing wonder that he got where he is. He's an asshole, first and foremost. If Mueller himself was put under the microscope like he's doing Trump, I have no doubt he'd be exposed as a fraud. I want to know what the SOB knew about Hillary's server, and when did he know it. There's no way in hell that he didn't know about it; not the Director of the FBI. I think there are reasons Rosenstein chose him to be the special prosecutor, and it wasn't for being a killer in the courtroom.

Certainly not for being a killer in the courtroom.
 
it depends
Indeed. I'm sure we can all agree double jeopardy precludes Mueller appealing the same charges with same evidence, I'm thinking of a 'technical' appeal, where Mueller would seek to try Manafort again for any charges that may have been dismissed or which he believes he failed to gain a conviction due to evidence erroneously deemed inadmissible, mistaken jury instructions or perceived bias by the court, something like this.
 
No link, it's just a fact. Prosecutors can't retry unless a hung jury. Otherwise, it's Double Jeopardy.

Edit: Ah, prosecutors can retry if a guilty verdict is overturned on appeal. But then they are limited to the topic of appeal.

Edit: I'm going to quit while I'm behind. I can't speak to the above accuracy, due to not have concurrent sources.

FWIW, I’ve been told (renato or preet, can’t remember which) that prosecution can’t appeal.
 
It is always amusing to find people making categorical assertions like this regarding anything that relates to the law. I’d always recommend anyone addressing any legal question start of by always saying “it depends…”

Though it is certainly true Mueller may absolutely not appeal Manafort’s acquittal (due to the Constitutional preclusion against “double jeopardy”) he could use the same evidence to prosecute different charges against Manafort. Mueller can appeal certain actions or decisions by the court, for example a dismissal of charges on certain grounds or the judge suppressing certain evidence, judicial determinations the defendant is unfit to stand trial or be sentenced are appelable too (these are “interlocutory” appeals –during trial).

After a final judgment prosecutors can appeal plain or fundamental error, questions of subject-matter jurisdiction and constitutional issues.
You are right, and a post or two later I did a mea culpa:

No link, it's just a fact. Prosecutors can't retry unless a hung jury. Otherwise, it's Double Jeopardy.

Edit: Ah, prosecutors can retry if a guilty verdict is overturned on appeal. But then they are limited to the topic of appeal.

Edit: I'm going to quit while I'm behind. I can't speak to the above accuracy, due to not have concurrent sources.
 
After doing some reading it would seem that I am mistaken. While I did not find anything definitive regarding federal courts, in general the appeal rights of the prosecution is quite limited in most jurisdictions. As best as I can deduce:

1) The prosecution can file appeals DURING the trial on specific actions or rulings by the judge, but not after the verdict is rendered.

2) The prosecution can file appeals to a higher courts ruling that was made on behalf of the convicted (presumably originally initiated by an appeal of the defendant).

While it is very likely that the prosecution has no right of appeal if the defendant is found not guilty, it is unclear if an appeals court has the ability to grant an appeal under certain circumstances.
I think this is about right, but after so many non-aligning sources, I've decided to let it lie ...
 
Indeed. I'm sure we can all agree double jeopardy precludes Mueller appealing the same charges with same evidence, I'm thinking of a 'technical' appeal, where Mueller would seek to try Manafort again for any charges that may have been dismissed or which he believes he failed to gain a conviction due to evidence erroneously deemed inadmissible, mistaken jury instructions or perceived bias by the court, something like this.

And I don't know if a technical appeal is possible.
 

SIAP. If you've read the link for day 8, Ellis, the judge, apologized to the Mueller prosecution for the judge being wrong in disallowing an FBI expert witness to linger in the courtroom while other prosecution witnesses were testifying. Normally, additional witnesses aren't allowed in the courtroom when other witnesses testify but the Mueller prosecution had asked Ellis for this stipulation and been granted it. Ellis didn't apologize for his (in my opinion) 'contentious' remarks to the Mueller prosecution before and after Ellis' apology.
 
Last edited:
Ellis' apology had nothing to do with the contention Ellis had with the Mueller prosecution before and after the apology.
 
Ellis' apology had nothing to do with the contention Ellis had with the Mueller prosecution before and after the apology.

The judge did add at the end of his apology this caveat. “Any criticism of counsel should be put aside — it doesn’t have anything to do with this case.” So don't read too much into the judge's criticism of the prosecution. At the end of day the decisions he renders will be based on the law. If you remember this was the same judge that was asking lots of questions that appeared to express skepticism about whether this case fell within Mueller's scope and jurisdiction what his motivations were. But when it came time to hand down his decision he ruled in favor of Mueller on nearly every point.
 
And I don't know if a technical appeal is possible.
We won't know for sure until the trial is over. So far I haven't read about anything that would sustain a claim of mistrial. The two major questionable issues are the dismissal of evidence relating to Manafort's affluent lifestyle (which really isn't relevant) and the challenge to Gates' testimony Manafort closely monitored his accounts and transactions but did not notice Gates' repeated and substantial embezzlement (which I'd expect Manafort's counsel would have raised on cross-examination anyway).
 
Stalin wasn't even close to being a Democrat.

Stalin was not a democrat, but his policies more closely aligned with those of the American democrat party than with those of the American Republican party.
 
The judge seems to be making the trial about him. His prejudicial behavior and comments is already enough to call for a mistrial.
 
Judges are given deference, its their courtroom and they've a lot of discretion on how to handle what goes on there, very rarely will a judge be corrected.
 
Back
Top Bottom