Three days before the Washington-based trial against Paul Manafort was set to begin, special counsel Robert Mueller raised eyebrows in the legal community when his office filed a new charging document. Many began to wonder whether an announcement about a plea agreement with Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, was coming down the pipeline. One did.
I'm a former assistant district attorney, and even after news of the plea broke, I didn't think Manafort stood to gain much from a cooperation deal.
I still don't. What's clear, though, is that Manafort was out of cards to play.
Unlike the other criminally charged former Trump aides, Manafort's problem was that he was facing a functional life sentence, even before the trial in Washington.
On Friday, he pleaded guilty to two federal charges--conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Although I worked at the state level, there are some universal principles at work when signing up cooperators and several familiar factors.
Manafort's hope for leniency at sentencing is two-prong--aimed both at Mueller and the sentencing judge.
There are times where it makes sense for a prosecutor to cooperate with a plea-reluctant defendant after a trial conviction. The offices that I worked at occasionally took the same view, too.
Mueller holds the keys. Manafort will almost certainly go to prison, notwithstanding the agreement, and only Mueller can bring the sentencing judge's attention to Manafort's efficacy or value. If Mueller doesn't make the motion, the judge cannot consider it.
The caveat, though, is that a federal judge is never locked in. He merely takes Mueller's recommendations under advisement.
The best cooperation happens early on, even on day one--a la Michael Flynn or Michael Cohen. Manafort's post-conviction cooperation may not be as effective. Even if he is truly extraordinary, he may still have a good bit of time to serve.
Editorial on 09/18/2018