CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN MANAFORT TRIAL: HOW LONG IS TOO LONG?

[Photo from wikipedia]

Today, closing arguments began in the criminal trial of former Trump campaign coordinator Paul Manafort.  According to various news reports, both sides asked the Judge for up to two hours for closing arguments.  Judge T.S. Ellis reportedly voiced skepticism about the lawyers being able to keep the jury's attention for that long!

What do you think? Should closing arguments be kept under an hour? Are jurors less attentive than they were one hundred years ago, when closing arguments often lasted for hours?

As a former federal prosecutor in Augusta, Georgia, I handled a few major complex fraud and public corruption cases in which my closing argument reached 90 minutes in length. However, I always tried to remember that if you talk too long, you will lose your jury!

OPENING STATEMENTS IN MANAFORT JURY TRIAL

[DOJ Seal from wikipedia]

A lot has been written about the ongoing federal criminal jury trial of Paul Manafort.  Today, I don't intend to discuss the merits of the Mueller team's case against the former campaign coordinator of President Trump.  Instead, I want to focus on the government prosecutor's manner of making his opening statement.  He read it!

In particular, according to news reports, the prosecutor read his entire opening statement to the jury.  Reading an opening statement or a closing argument is a pet peeve of mine!  In my opinion, no trial lawyer should ever READ an opening statement!  Instead, I believe a good trial lawyer will be so prepared that he or she will be able to speak, without reading, their statement or argument.  Nobody likes to be read to.  Also, by speaking, instead of reading, a trial lawyer is better able to both make eye contact with jurors and to display a greater degree of confidence and preparedness!

As a former federal prosecutor in Augusta, Georgia for over twenty years, I prosecuted and saw countless federal criminal trials.  In my opinion, the best lawyers never read their openings or closings!

I am sure the government's attorney in this case is a fine lawyer!  But in my opinion, opening statements should be spoken but NOT read!

What do you think?

SHOULD PRESIDENT TRUMP MEET WITH MUELLER?

Should President Trump meet with Mr. Mueller's agents?  He's certainly said he's not only willing to do so, but that he would gladly do it "under oath!" What do you think? If you were his criminal defense attorney, would you allow your client to meet with and be interrogated by law enforcement agents?

From my perspective, as a former federal prosecutor and, currently, as a criminal defense lawyer, there is no way I would want my client to meet with government agents in his circumstances!

For example, I would be worried that the feds would try to trip him up, in order to bring a false statements charge against him, just like they did with Michael Flynn.

Plus, serious questions have been raised recently about bias in Special Counsel Mueller's team against the President.

In addition, here, presumably, the defense team doesn't know all the potential evidence that Mueller's team may have against their client.

So, in my opinion, I would hope the President would take my advice, as his lawyer, and not submit to an interrogation. Mr. Cobb and other folks on the President's team should, instead, be insisting that Mueller should simply submit any questions to them and then they may provide written responses.

What do you think?