Manafort Case update

Judge Ellis Loses Patience with Mueller Prosecutors and Ends Court Early Over Screw-Up

Paul Manafort‘s third day on trial over charges of bank fraud and tax evasion was cut a bit short on Thursday after government attorneys made the same mistake twice in a row. The last witness called to the stand was J. Philip Ayliff, a certified public accountant (CPA) at Paul Manafort’s long-serving tax-preparation agency, Kositzka, Wicks and Co. (KWC), of Richmond, Virginia. As time inched along during the last witness’s testimony, nothing of particular interest seemed to be occurring at all.  

Ayliff was mostly providing foundational testimony regarding the basic functions of a tax-preparation company. Prosecutors then moved on to specifics and attempted to “publish” one of Manafort’s e-file forms. Judge T.S. Ellis III‘s weariness all but amazed the courtroom as he denied the request–complete with an actual and pronounced finger-wag–before shouting:No! You move it along!

Composing themselves again, the prosecution moved slowly forward before asking Ayliff to define the term “financial interest.” Ayliff began to answer the question but was immediately cut off by Ellis who noted that Ayliff was not a noticed expert. The defense then belatedly objected, prompting a quick and sarcastic dressing-down from the judge–but it was again the prosecution’s turn for scorn.

Static filled the courtroom as the longest bench conference of the day ensued. Upon returning to Ayliff’s testimony, the jury learned that the issue had been deferred until Friday–if ever. Then, Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye asked about another term of art contained on federal tax forms.

Judge Ellis, who was already standing by this point, advised Ayliff to wait and announced the court would recess early.

Not only was Ayliff not an expert and not a noticed expert as necessitated by the Federal Rules of Evidence–but his testimony had the potential to derail an already-agreed-upon definition of the term(s) in question. This, Ellis said, could have “confused or clouded” things for the jury.

So far it looks like the Judge is irritated that the prosecution is taking a great deal of time attempting to create a particular narrative to the jury that really has nothing to do with tax fraud or money laundering.  It appears that Judge Ellis sees the prosecution as attempting to create wealth envy with the jury, and make Manafort look like a "bad guy" who must have done something wrong to have made all that money.

In this sort of case, where a Judge shows a real animosity towards the prosecution, it makes you wonder if that is a "good thing" for the defendant or a bad thing. My first reaction is that it would make the jury suspicious of the prosecution's motives and underlying case. But at some point, continued berating by the judge could actually provide the prosecutors with some sympathy from the jury. Perhaps they convict because the Judge was mean to prosecutors and they feel bad for them (maybe not).