This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/paul-manafort-trial.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Paul Manafort Trial Jury Suggests It Is Divided on One of 18 Counts Jury Suggests It Is Divided on One of 18 Counts in Manafort Trial
(about 5 hours later)
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The jury in the financial fraud trial of Paul Manafort asked the judge on Tuesday for instructions on how to fill out the verdict sheet if jurors are having trouble reaching consensus on a single one of the 18 counts. ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Update: Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, was convicted on Tuesday in his financial fraud trial, bringing a dramatic end to a politically charged case that riveted the capital. Read the latest, here.
The jury in the financial fraud trial of Paul Manafort asked the judge on Tuesday for instructions on how to fill out the verdict sheet if jurors are having trouble reaching consensus on a single one of the 18 counts.
Judge T.S. Ellis III called the jurors into the courtroom after receiving a note with their question, and asked them to keep deliberating to reach a verdict on all counts.Judge T.S. Ellis III called the jurors into the courtroom after receiving a note with their question, and asked them to keep deliberating to reach a verdict on all counts.
Out of the jury’s hearing, Judge Ellis told prosecutors and Mr. Manafort’s defense lawyers that if the jury could not come to unanimous agreement on all counts, he would consider accepting a partial verdict.Out of the jury’s hearing, Judge Ellis told prosecutors and Mr. Manafort’s defense lawyers that if the jury could not come to unanimous agreement on all counts, he would consider accepting a partial verdict.
It was not immediately clear if the jurors’ question suggested that they had reached a verdict on 17 of the 18 counts of bank and tax fraud brought against Mr. Manafort, a former campaign chairman for President Trump.It was not immediately clear if the jurors’ question suggested that they had reached a verdict on 17 of the 18 counts of bank and tax fraud brought against Mr. Manafort, a former campaign chairman for President Trump.
The jury’s note to Judge Ellis asked: “If we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the jury verdict sheet for that count, and what does that mean for the final verdict?”The jury’s note to Judge Ellis asked: “If we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the jury verdict sheet for that count, and what does that mean for the final verdict?”
The jury said it would “need another form, please.”The jury said it would “need another form, please.”
The question from the jury came on the fourth day of deliberations following a two-week trial. During the trial, prosecutors built a case that Mr. Manafort hid millions of dollars in foreign accounts to evade taxes and lied to banks repeatedly to obtain $20 million in loans.The question from the jury came on the fourth day of deliberations following a two-week trial. During the trial, prosecutors built a case that Mr. Manafort hid millions of dollars in foreign accounts to evade taxes and lied to banks repeatedly to obtain $20 million in loans.
The trial is the first stemming from the inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russian interference in the 2016 election.The trial is the first stemming from the inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
It did not touch on Russia’s efforts to influence the election or on whether Mr. Trump had sought to obstruct the investigation. But it is the first test of the special counsel’s ability to prosecute a case in a federal courtroom amid intense criticism from the president and his allies that the inquiry is a biased and unjustified witch hunt.It did not touch on Russia’s efforts to influence the election or on whether Mr. Trump had sought to obstruct the investigation. But it is the first test of the special counsel’s ability to prosecute a case in a federal courtroom amid intense criticism from the president and his allies that the inquiry is a biased and unjustified witch hunt.
The case centered on how Mr. Manafort handled the tens of millions of dollars he earned in Ukraine as an adviser to politicians aligned with Russia.The case centered on how Mr. Manafort handled the tens of millions of dollars he earned in Ukraine as an adviser to politicians aligned with Russia.
Mr. Manafort also faces another trial next month in federal court in Washington, D.C., on separate charges related to the same case.Mr. Manafort also faces another trial next month in federal court in Washington, D.C., on separate charges related to the same case.