Manafort NY fraud case dismissed by Judge

appointed by McConnell??

“Basically, the law of double jeopardy in New York state provides a very narrow window for prosecution," the judge said.

Wiley noted that prosecutors can appeal decision and likely will.

Lawyer Todd Blanche raised the double jeopardy issue soon after Manafort was arrested, saying that the charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. violated a state law that bars repeat prosecutions for the same general conduct.

The factual overlap between the federal and state cases “is extensive — if not total,” Blanche wrote in court papers.





That same ruling would protect you and me if Trump want to pile charges and bury us in Federal and state charges.

Its not over yet, Manafort has plenty of time to die in prison, and the SDNY can refile those charges not tied to previous charges he's been found guilty of and they can appeal this ruling.

just asking. Not fair at all to let the fraud case go.

The federal government doesn't have anything to do with the appointment of trial court judges in the state of New York.

or any county, city, villiage etc.

Is that better, JBerry?

or elected, depending on state law. This judge was appointed to his position as a New York County trial judge by Chief Adminstrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, and was originally appointed to the New York Court of Claims by Gov. Pataki (R) and re-appointed by Gov. Paterson (D). And the reason he dismissed the case had to do with a New York statute relating to double jeopardy, which has been changed recently, not for substantive reasons.

How many times would you like to try people for the same offense?

In fact, it has been extensively discussed at DU that NY has a much broader double jeopardy provision than would be required by default, and it does prevent state prosecution for the same crimes as a prior federal prosecution.

But let's just attack the system as corrupt, since that is easier, and serves the overall purpose of undermining the rule of law.

actually passed a law overturning their double jeopardy statute, one of only a few states who had it.

The Supreme Court has not overturned the Dual Sovereignty doctrine yet, thus it still applies.

for people pardoned by a president who hold some type of connection to that president.

From the office of the NY AG:



SCOTUS heard a case just last year on the federal dual sovereignty doctrine - Gamble v US - and upheld it with a 7-2 vote. (Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented.) It's not likely that it will consider another case concerning it anytime soon. Or even not-too-soon.

Supreme Court decisions on basic rights provide a floor, not a ceiling. States can, and do, provide greater protections than the federal constitutional minimum in a variety of circumstances.

For example, if a state wanted to pass a law that said no one could be prosecuted in that state if they've ever been prosecuted for anything federally, then the Dual Sovereignty doctrine doesn't enter into the picture (other than as an affirmative statement that states can run their criminal systems as they want, as long as they don't violate federally protected rights).

Finally, the law that was recently signed by Cuomo does not apply retroactively to prosecutions which had already begun:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s4572

This act shall take effect immediately, and shall apply to offenses
committed on or after the date this act shall have become a law, and
shall also apply to offenses committed before such date, where the
proceedings specified in subdivision one of section 40.30 of the crimi-
nal procedure law have not occurred as of such date.

In other words, that law is irrelevant to this case, by its own terms.

The NY Appellate Division is going to have another crack at it, but my money is on Manafort not being particularly long for this world.

The pardon provision (allowing a second prosecution of certain recipients of pardons) applies to past offenses if the proceedings in subdivision one of section 40.30 have not occurred as of the date the law took effect (October 16, 2019).

Under Section 40.30, subdivision one a person is "prosecuted" for an offense when he is charged therewith by an accusatory instrument filed in a court of this state or of any jurisdiction within the United States, and when the action either:

(a) Terminates in a conviction upon a plea of guilty;  or

(b) Proceeds to the trial stage and a jury has been impaneled and sworn or, in the case of a trial by the court without a jury, a witness is sworn.

The offenses for which Manafort was charged occurred before October 16, 2019. And he was charged in March 2019. He wasn't tried -- no jury was impaneled or any witnesses sworn.

So, as I read the law, the pardon provision would apply to Manafort, but that won't be an issue if the appeals court agrees with the lower court that the NY double jeopardy law doesn't allow a prosecution of Manafort for the offenses with which he has been charged.

This is about Dual Sovereignty, not pardons.

A state can choose not to exercise its full power under the Dual Sovereignty doctrine - as per your other note below.

I wasn't questioning the validity of the NY law that gives broader protection against double jeopardy than what the SCOTUS has ruled is required. Just elaborating on the extent to which the new pardon provision (which isn't really relevant here) is prospective.

There are exceptions built into the NY law and the issue is whether or not any of those exceptions (which would allow the state prosecution) apply. And applying those exceptions more often involves issues that are in gray area rather than black and white.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-40-20.html

The OP states that the country is "corrupt".

I get a little fed up with the constant baseless slander in which a fair number of DUers regularly engage against people they don't know for reasons they don't even try to understand.

No, the entire country is not "corrupt and unfair" because of this court's interpretation and application of the law.

This judge might be correct or incorrect, and that's going to be looked at on appeal of this decision.

But it does no one any good to constantly accuse everyone in the legal system of corruption. In fact, that is precisely what the enemies of Democracy would like us to do.

There were several counts that were from counts that resulted in a hung jury. Why can’t those be retried.

Not that they can't be convicted twice.

who object to the dual sovereignty exception and are opposed to prosecuting a defendant more than once for, in essence, the same actions.

This law has the full-throated support of the NYCU (the NY chapter of the ACLU). It sucks that it may end up giving protection to Manafort in this instance but there is no exception for "people we don't like).

Here is the NY law applied in this case: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-40-20.html

and not considered double jeopardy. I think this will allow a pardon. President can pardon federal convictions.

But NY law seeks to protect those accused of criminal offenses from multiple trials beyond what federal law requires. In other words, while the federal "dual sovereignty" rule doesn't violate the constitution's double jeopardy provision, it does not prevent states from more broadly barring multiple prosecutions.