'I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty, but he was,' says juror who supports Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
One of the jurors from Paul Manafort's trial said on Wednesday that although she "did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty," the evidence was "overwhelming."
"I thought that the public, America, needed to know how close this was, and that the evidence was overwhelming," Paula Duncan said in an interview on Fox News. "I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty, but he was, and no one's above the law. So it was our obligation to look through all the evidence."
Duncan, who is the first juror to speak publicly, offered a look behind the scenes of the deliberations. She noted that "crazily enough, there were even tears," and detailed some of the jury's conversations with the lone juror who she said was the reason Manafort was not found guilty on all counts.
"We all tried to convince her to look at the paper trail. We laid it out in front of her again and again and she still said that she had a reasonable doubt. And that's the way the jury worked. We didn't want it to be hung, so we tried for an extended period of time to convince her, but in the end she held out and that's why we have 10 counts that did not get a verdict," Duncan said on "Fox News at Night."
Manafort, who served as President Donald Trump's campaign chairman, was found guilty on eight of 18 counts on Tuesday, and is facing up to 80 years in prison. He was found guilty of five tax fraud charges, one charge of hiding foreign bank accounts and two counts of bank fraud.
One of the witnesses who testified against Manafort was his longtime deputy, Rick Gates. Duncan described Gates as "nervous," and said the jury ultimately threw away his testimony during deliberation.
"Some of us had a problem accepting his testimony because he took the plea. So we agreed to throw out his testimony and look at the paperwork, which his name was all over," Duncan said.
"I think he would have done anything to preserve himself -- that's just obvious in the fact that he flipped on Manafort," she later added.
Duncan, who said she is a Trump supporter herself, said the President's name did come up during deliberations because "in the evidence there were references to Trump and his son-in-law and to the Trump campaign," but later added that she didn't think politics played a part in the jury's decision.
"I think we all went in there like we were supposed to and assumed that Mr. Manafort was innocent. We did due diligence, we applied the evidence, our notes, the witnesses and we came up with the guilty verdicts on the eight counts," she said.
Manafort will be on trial again next month on a second set of charges, this time in a Washington federal court. These charges include a failure to register foreign lobbying and a money laundering conspiracy related to Ukrainian political work.
Tags
Who is online
162 visitors
I see so many things with this.
There were people that went into this wanting him be be innocent.
They let these people go home and watch any media they wanted or talk to anyone they wanted.
This lone juror could have been an adamant trump supporter, that despite overwhelming evidence, just would not vote against him.
I blame the judge for a lot of these problems.
This woman should be careful putting herself out there like this. There are some seriously deranged people out there on both sides.
Yeah, even the judge said he received threats. They wouldn't release any juror names. There are some sick/weird people around. As a juror, she would not get the same protection the judge would.
This woman at least seemed pretty level headed.
"We all tried to convince her to look at the paper trail. We laid it out in front of her again and again and she still said that she had a reasonable doubt.”
I do not know, I was not there, However, when I can follow a paper trail that’s pretty hard to ignore.
I’m reminded by how the lady put it, “We all tried to convince her” that reminded of the old true saying “Someone convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.”
While I’m not saying the juror didn’t see it because they didn’t want to see it, but there certainly is that possibility from what little I gather from this one sided article.
Maybe the lone juror knows or believes something the other jurors dont, but maybe that juror didn't want to see what the other jurors did as well.
One way or another the verdict is in and it's not my place to really second guess any of it.
JUST my opinion.
I would only call it one sided, as the article is about what one woman said.
She had an interview on fox.
The woman even admitted that she herself was a trump supporter and didn't want Manafort to be guilty. She basically said she had to because of the overwhelming evidence.
One person refusing to see the evidence also had the ability to go home, talk to people and watch the news/opinion shows of their choice. Maybe even hear trump himself spouting off about the case.
Thanks I wish I'd have said it that way, that's actually how I meant it.
One person refusing to see the evidence also had the ability to go home, talk to people and watch the news/opinion shows of their choice.
It still remind me of not being convinced against ones will.
However I doubt we will ever know or possibly even understand the juror's decision.
I can't now.
No problem. I just thought what she said was interesting. I am sure the others have their own perspective.
I did as well. It's nice to get an insiders take on this and why the verdict was what it was.
Dear Friend Ender: Jury sequestration would help.
Not sure it can rule out jurors who make up their minds prior to hearing the evidence.
Another problem not prevented by sequestering is jurors not following the directives from the bench.
As I was not there, I don't know what, if anything I just said is on point.
Feel free to delete if off topic.
E.
I agree. I was just thinking that in a high profile case like this, sequestering them would have been prudent.
The whole thing went rather quickly though.
I wonder if this Trump supporter would be able to be as objective if it was Trump himself on trial. Will Trump ever be convicted of anything, even if he's no longer President and the evidence against him is overwhelming? There's bound to be at least one Trump cultist on any jury.
perhaps he could shoot someone and get away with it eh ? Yeah Wouldn't surprise me either.
I stopped underestimating this man long ago.
But I always thought that cult leaders were supposed to be smart. Crazy maybe, but smart. Trump has 40%+ of America under his spell and he's a total moron!
Well, (scrachin head) perhaps that says more about the trump followers than I want or like to believe.
lol
...........................................
But, I'm not of the believe that this man is stupid, he's a man with a lot of what I consider very Undesirable qualities though that's for damn sure.
IMO: If trump was so stupid, he wouldn't be as dangerous as I think he is or could be.
Sorry, but the lady interviewed is a Trump supporter and still voted guilty on all counts. The one holdout on 10 of the charges is an unknown. Please actually read the article before commenting. The lone holdout obviously voted guilty on 8 of the 18 counts or there would be no conviction. So, the question would be, what was the reason for not agreeing withthe others on 10 other counts? We will likley never know, especially as none of the jurors are answerable to anyone besides themselves.
I doubt sequestration would have made any difference going in-this has been national news for how long?
LOL! Literally, the VERY FIRST THING I said in the post you responded to was "I wonder if this Trump supporter..."
And your response is "Sorry Lenny but the lady interviewed is a Trump supporter...Please actually read the article..."
Go away.
Not today, Leonard. Your comment has nothing to do with the story, just more 'what ifs' about something that has not happened. I've seen ADD kids that are better at staying on topic.
I find it curious that trump feels sorry for manafort, who is a convicted felon, but slams Cohen, who I personally do not trust at all, but has apparently decided to come clean. Trump said that "flipping", should be outlawed.
Criminals good, people telling the truth in court? Bad. Got it.
I thought trump was the law and order president? Chalk that up to lie # 4,304.
I'm looking forward to Trump's certain pardon of Reality Winner, the woman who publicly exposed that Russians had hacked one of the companies which supplies voting machine software and had potentially compromised over 100 local election offices. She's a patriot.
The hell she is. She's no better than Snowden or Manning.
What in the hell are you prattling on about? What does this have to do witht he article?
I totally agree.
Patriots all.
Read about attorney client privilege. Cohen either violated it or President Trump wasn't his client. Which was it?
I'm no attorney but if your attorney is complicit in your crime there is no attorney-client privilege
Exactly. It doesnt apply if a crime is being committed or covered up. It doesn't really matter anyway because as a felon, Cohen will disbarred anyway.
I guess I should be heartened. Supposed regular, everyday Americans on a jury trial have tears and heartache over someone guilty of tax evasion, bank fraud and all of the glorious, respectable rest.
Who says Americans don't have a heart? A rational brain would be another discussion.
that was giggle worthy