Lone Manafort Juror Blocked Conviction On All 18 Counts

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 30: Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort leaves the United States Court House after his indicement hearing in Washington, DC on October 30, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Keith Lane/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 30: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort leaves federal court, October 30, 2017 in Washington, DC. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, have been indicted by a federal grand jury in the inv... WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 30: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort leaves federal court, October 30, 2017 in Washington, DC. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, have been indicted by a federal grand jury in the investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. election. (Photo by Keith Lane/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Paula Duncan, a juror in the Paul Manafort trial, told Fox News on Wednesday that one holdout juror was the “not guilty” vote that kept Manafort from being declared guilty on all 18 counts.

He was ultimately convicted on 8 counts, with the juror’s opposition causing the other 10 to be declared a mistrial.

Duncan, an ardent Trump supporter who was nonetheless swayed by the sheer amount of evidence the prosecutors possessed, said that the jury deliberations were tense and peppered with angry and emotional outbursts.

“It was a very emotionally charged jury room–there were some tears,” she said.

Duncan said that for herself personally, her allegiance to the President made it difficult for her to contribute to the conviction of his former campaign chairman.

“Finding Mr. Manafort guilty was hard for me. I wanted him to be innocent, I really wanted him to be innocent, but he wasn’t,” Duncan said. “That’s the part of a juror, you have to have due diligence and deliberate and look at the evidence and come up with an informed and intelligent decision, which I did.”

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for jep07 jep07 says:

    “Duncan said that for herself personally, her allegiance to the President made it difficult for her to contribute to the conviction of his former campaign chairman.”
    and then THIS?
    “That’s the part of a juror, you have to have due diligence and deliberate and look at the evidence and come up with an informed and intelligent decision, which I did.”

    The consummate Trumpladyte… so prejudiced for Trump, she is profoundly disappointed in the truth. So much so, they can somehow articulate their confusion into what they consider cogent comments, but the dissonance is clear to anyone looking in who doesn’t worship Trump.

    Anyone doubt for a moment this woman watches FOX exclusively?

  2. Profile?

    Trump voter
    Below average intellect
    Believes they have incredible common sense
    Believes they’re incredibly reasonable
    Likely a “Libertarian” because they like the sound of the word

    And I ask what did you doubt reasonably?
    The documents were forgeries?
    The veracity of the witnesses?
    What did you reasonably doubt???

  3. Avatar for spin spin says:

    This is all the fault of the asshole judge. Republican Judge Cranky (a) did not allow the kind of voir dire necessary to root out politically based bias, (b) did not sequester the jury (bar them from media access), © continuously attacked the prosecution in front of the jury sending the signal that he did not like their attitude, and then (d) when his actions caused a hung jury did not do what he was supposed to and stick with the Allan charge and stress the need to keep working it out… This juror clearly picked up on all this, and my guess is that it impacted the hold out.

    In a just world the prosecution would file an ethics complaint against the judge for his behavior. Alas the asshole will just get away with it. Bad case of Federal Black Robe syndrome

    P.s. you can bet that the Judge in Manafort’s second trial will ask a lot more questions of the jurors to root out political bias.

    P.s.s The one good thing about this is that the trial shows what happens when you force a Trump Supporter to get off FOX and look at the “overwhelming evidence” they convict. You can bet that if the juror has just watched FOX news coverage, they would have acquitted Manifort. Hopefully when the media starts to call it like it is as the lies and just utter craziness accelerates (as appears to be happening, no more talk of Trump finally “becoming presidential”) the evidence will start to break through to the FOX addled set

  4. So, there was that lone implacable juror some of you warned about.

    Mueller still got eight convictions, didn’t he?

    Even the most obtuse observer was convinced.

    My money is on Mueller all the way.

  5. Actually, what she says heartens me. She overcame her personal political beliefs to judge the case solely on its merits. Sounds as if one other juror chose the cause of Trump over the cause of justice.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

230 more replies

Participants

Avatar for sedonaz Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for ajileye Avatar for smiley Avatar for jep07 Avatar for jackster Avatar for economides Avatar for voreason Avatar for becca656 Avatar for crackerjack Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for sickneffintired Avatar for midnight_rambler Avatar for topchap Avatar for katwillow Avatar for tena Avatar for esperia Avatar for misterneutron Avatar for jtx Avatar for just_observing Avatar for lizzymom Avatar for tpr Avatar for philmore Avatar for rascal_crone

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: