ALEXANDRIA, VA — After being chastised repeatedly by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in front of the jury during Paul Manafort’s ongoing trial in Virginia, the prosecutors arguing the case appear to have had enough. On Thursday, they filed a court filing taking issue with Ellis’s outburst over a government witness who had watched the full trial before being called to the stand.
Ellis told the jury Thursday morning to “put aside any criticism” of the prosecutors. “I sometimes make mistakes,” Ellis said.
The prosecutors had asked Ellis on July 31 to permit the presence of the expert witness, IRS tax expert Michael Welch, in the courtroom for the proceedings. Thursday’s filing includes an excerpt of the transcript with Ellis explicitly granting the request and even asking the name of the expert.
On Wednesday when the government called Welch and asked him if he had heard previous witnesses testimony, Ellis blew up at prosecutor Uzo Asonye.
Thursday’s filing asked for the judge to address the issue in front of the jury at the start of the day’s proceedings and correct “the court’s erroneous admonishment” of the prosecutors.
This is not the first time prosecutors pushed back on Ellis for his admonishments. At a bench conference last week prosecutor Greg Andres brought up the judge continuing to suggest that the government is making mistakes. We don’t have “to be chastised in front of the jury for every mistake,” Andres said.
Ellis pushed back. He told the prosecutors to “get it right” and said that they “haven’t been chastised for every mistake.”
Asonye brought up the court filing to Ellis at the beginning of Thursday’s proceedings. “You’re to put that aside,” Ellis told the jury about the issue. “I may well have been wrong.”
Lacks judicial temperament?
cue the Faux News “Judge admits error! Mistrial must be declared! Argle bargle!” propaganda.
No, just being an asshole. The judge should shut up and oversee the trial and be careful no to scold both the prosecution and the defence. Both sides need an impartial judge: not a self-absorbed jurist.
If invoked the normal rule is witnesses are not permitted in the courtroom prior to their testimony. In this case somebody had invoked the rule but the prosecution had asked for permission to have this expert watch the proceedings. The court had considered the request and had permitted the witness to watch the proceedings. When the witness was called, it is obvious judge cranky had forgotten his specific permission. The judge did screw up.
Wow, something’s clearly wrong with this judge. His temperament is way off.
The transcript clearly shows he was wrong but his statement to the jury is “I may well have been wrong”. No dude. You WERE wrong. There is no “may have been” here. You were just plain wrong.