WASHINGTON — Paul Manafort’s defense rested Tuesday without calling any witnesses — including Manafort himself — a decision that sends the tax- and bank-fraud trial into its final stages.
Closing statements will begin Wednesday, with jury deliberations to follow.
U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III rejected a last-minute bid by the defense to toss out the charges against Manafort, the former chairman of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team brought the charges as part of its investigation into Russian interference during the presidential election.
Manafort spoke for the first time during the Alexandria, Virginia, trial on Tuesday in response to a short series of questions from Ellis ensuring he was aware he had the right to testify on his own behalf. Dressed in a dark suit, the longtime GOP operative stood at the podium next to his lawyer, Kevin Downing, and confirmed he had discussed the matter with his attorneys and was satisfied with their advice.
Asked if he had decided whether he wanted to testify, Manafort answered in the affirmative.
“I have decided,” he told the judge. When Ellis then queried him if he wanted to testify, Manafort responded, “No, sir.”
Shortly after lunch, jurors returned to the court room briefly to hear Ellis ask whether the defense planned to call any witnesses.
“No, your honor. The defense rests,” Downing said.
With that, jurors were instructed to return for closing arguments on Wednesday at 9:30 a.m.
Outside the courthouse, Downing made a rare statement to the TV cameras, explaining the former Trump campaign chairman’s decision not to mount a defense.
“Mr. Manafort just rested his case. He did so because he and his legal team believe that the government has not met its burden of proof,” Downing said.
Ellis scheduled a session later Tuesday for prosecutors and defense lawyers to argue over what kinds of instructions to give the jury when they begin their deliberations. The judge said he won’t be putting the instructions down on paper but will provide the jury with an audio recording in case they want to go back and listen to them again as they consider the charges.
Ellis also proposed that the jury only be allowed to take into their deliberations the portions of the 37-page Manafort indictment that directly with the charges they’re debating.
Looking ahead to Wednesday’s proceedings, Ellis urged Mueller’s prosecutors to try to pare down the time they need to deliver their closing arguments. The special counsel’s team has requested at least two hours to wrap up their case — which revolves around hundreds of pieces of evidence and 18 criminal counts — but the judge warned them that could be “excessive.”
“It’s very, very hard for anybody, any jurors, to pay attention for two straight hours,” Ellis said, urging them to at least aim for a 90-minute closing.
Manafort’s attorneys on Tuesday assured the judge they could make their final appeal in an hour and a half.
Another mysterious delay
The Manafort lawyer’s announcement that they would call no witnesses followed an unexplained two-hour delay Tuesday morning as lawyers and the judge apparently haggled behind the scenes over an unspecified defense motion.
It was the third court day in a row where Ellis took the court into a secret session. The judge said Monday afternoon that the closed hearing was needed because of a sealed motion filed by the defense. He did not elaborate, but insisted that transcripts of the hearing would eventually be made public.
“It will remain under seal for the time being. Not permanently,” Ellis said as he convened a private hearing on the defense motion Monday afternoon.
It appeared that hearing continued Tuesday morning, leaving a crowd of more than 100 onlookers to mill about outside the doors of Ellis’ ninth-floor courtroom at the Alexandria courthouse.
A court security officer repeatedly called for quiet as the restless crowd’s conversations grew louder and louder.
A similar scenario played out Friday, when the judge effectively delayed the opening of the public court session until the afternoon. In that instance, lawyers and a court reporter joined Ellis in his chambers. Ellis at one point crossed the courtroom and went into a door near the jury room, accompanied by a court reporter, leading to speculation that the issue involved a juror.
No public explanation was given for that day’s delay, nor is it clear if Friday’s holdup and the sealed motion are related. Prosecutors filed another brief Tuesday opposing the sealed defense motion, but the response was not made public.
In another development Tuesday, Ellis rejected a defense motion to have the judge acquit Manafort on all 18 counts he faces on the grounds that the prosecution failed to present adequate evidence for any reasonable juror to convict.
Such motions are routine and are rarely granted. But Manafort’s team attacked in particular four felony charges the longtime lobbyist faces over alleged fraud in applying for $16 million in loans from the Federal Savings Bank in Chicago. The defense contends prosecutors never showed that Manafort’s alleged misstatements were actually relevant to the bank’s decisions.
Instead, Mueller’s team has presented evidence that the bank’s CEO, Stephen Calk, was insistent on granting the loans regardless of any issues flagged by his subordinates. Calk was seeking a senior Trump administration post at the time.
In an audacious argument filed with the court late Monday night, defense lawyers contended that Calk’s desire to make the loan was so unwavering that it rendered trivial any alleged falsehoods on Manafort’s part.
“The evidence in the record has clearly established that any inconsistencies in the information supplied in connection with Mr. Manafort’s loan applications were not material to [the bank’s] decision on whether or not to approve the loans,” the defense wrote, adding that Calk’s “interest in doing business with Mr. Manafort” was at least part of the reason the bank approved the loans.
Ellis said from the bench Tuesday morning that he thought the defense’s argument on was “significant,” but not enough to have him throw out that charge.
“Materiality is a matter for the jury,” the judge said.