Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 1868
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Criminal No. 1:18-cr-00083-TSE
Judge T. S. Ellis, III

DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT JR.’S MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE
AND FOR OTHER RELIEF RELATING TO JURY SELECTION
Defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr., by and through counsel, files this memorandum in support
of his motion for a change of venue and for other relief relating to jury selection. Mr. Manafort
makes his motion based upon his Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury and pursuant
to Rule 21of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
1. Procedural Background
On June 29, the Court addressed Mr. Manafort’s motion for a hearing inquiring into
improper government leaks to the media. (Dkt. 43). The Court stated that any hearing to assess
any alleged leaks would take place following the trial. The Court further noted that if defendant
was seeking a change of venue, he should file a motion by July 6, 2018.
At the June 29 hearing, the Court also explained how jury selection would be conducted.
First, the Court informed counsel that it would not use the proposed jury questionnaire. Second,
the Court described the jury selection process itself. Specifically, the Court noted that it would ask

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID# 1869
 
approximately 60 potential jurors about exposure to media coverage, but that it would not inquire
into who anyone voted for or whether they subscribe to certain publications. Upon defendant’s
request, the Court granted permission to file supplemental briefing by July 6, 2018.
2. Pretrial Publicity
The investigation into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose
or may arise directly from the investigation” has dominated the news cycle in the United States at
least since the moment of Mr. Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017. See
May 17, 2017 Appointment Order. From the outset, a significant portion of the media coverage
has focused on Mr. Manafort – the first individual indicted by the Special Counsel and the first
individual to face a trial arising from the probe.
While federal courts often address issues of pretrial publicity in high-profile cases, it is
difficult to conceive of a matter that has received media attention of the same magnitude as the
prosecution of Mr. Manafort. There are several reasons for this unrelenting news coverage.
First, the Special Counsel investigation focuses on issues relating to a sitting United States
President. While Mr. Manfort’s indictment and upcoming trial before this Court have little to do
with President Trump, as the Court noted, in a much-reported statement:
Given the investigation’s focus on President Trump’s campaign, even a blind
person can see that the true target of the Special Counsel’s investigation is President
Trump, not [Manafort], and that [Manafort’s] prosecution is part of that larger plan.
Court’s Order on Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 97, at 11, n.15.1
Unsurprisingly, then, the nation’s attention remains fixed on Mr. Manafort’s trial.

                                                       
1

See, e.g., 'Even a blind person' can see Mueller using Manafort to 'target' Trump: judge, The Washington Times,
June 28, 2018. Available at: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/28/even-blind-person-can-seemueller-using-manafort-t/

2

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 1870
 
Second, the subject matter of the Special Counsel’s investigation has a direct relationship
to the political process. This prosecution involves the President’s former campaign manager. As
a result, for many Americans, Mr. Manafort’s legal issues and the attendant daily media coverage
have become theatre in the continuing controversy surrounding President Trump and his election.
This controversy continues to engender strong partisans on both sides of every issue. As a result,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to divorce the issues in this case from the political views of potential
jurors.
Third, the high profile of the Special Counsel himself, a former FBI Director, has turned
the Special Counsel’s investigation into something the media has portrayed as a showdown
between Mr. Mueller on one hand and the President on the other.
Fourth, the reporting on this prosecution has often been sensationalized and untethered
from the facts in the case. For example, while the recent indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, a
defendant in the D.C. prosecution, involved little more than an effort to make contact with a former
associate, the reporting about Mr. Kilimnik has focused primarily on his alleged background in
Russian intelligence.2
Fifth, on June 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia revoked Mr.
Manafort’s release and remanded him into custody. This event, less than 45 days before the trial
scheduled before this Court, unleashed a spate of intensely negative news coverage suggesting that
Mr. Manafort violated the law.3 Indeed, even the President’s response on Twitter; observed that

                                                       
2
See, e.g., Russian charged with Trump’s ex-campaign chief is key figure, The Washington Post, July 2, 2018.
Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/russian-charged-with-trumps-ex-campaign-chief-is-keyfigure/2018/07/02/c34bfc74-7e1c-11e8-a63f-7b5d2aba7ac5_story.html?utm_term=.3d9d016fd126
 
3
Notably, this coverage included televised video of the van carrying Mr. Manafort arriving at the Northern Neck
Regional Jail. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/16/paul-manafort-arrives-to-jail-ctn.cnn

3

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID# 1871
 
Mr. Manafort received a “tough sentence,” incorrectly suggesting that Mr. Manafort had been
sentenced for committing a crime.4
Finally, while this matter has received national media attention, the coverage, and the
degree to which the public has followed that coverage, has been most intense in and around
Washington, D.C. The Alexandria Division5 of the Eastern District of Virginia is part of the
greater Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and lies, at least in part, inside-the-Beltway.
3. Applicable Law and Argument
Under the Sixth Amendment, all criminal defendants have the right to trial by “indifferent”
jurors “free from outside influences,” who will “base their decision solely on the evidence,”
undisturbed by personal prejudice or public passion. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362
(1966); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961).
In Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), the Supreme Court reviewed the denial
of a change of venue motion in a high-profile white-collar crime prosecution. The government
charged Skilling, the former CEO of Enron Corporation, with more than 25 counts of securities
fraud, wire fraud, and making false statements in relation to Enron's financial strength. Id. at 369.
The trial took place in Houston, the site of the company's headquarters. Skilling filed a motion
seeking a change of venue, which the district court denied. Id. at 369-70. Following his
conviction, Skilling appealed, first to the Fifth Circuit and then to the Supreme Court, complaining

                                                       
4
See ‘Very unfair!’: Trump complains about Manafort’s jailing on witness tampering allegations, The Washington
Post, June 15, 2018. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nothing-to-do-with-our-campaigntrump-seeks-to-distance-himself-from-manafort-before-hes-jailed/2018/06/15/79267402-70b7-11e8-bf86a2351b5ece99_story.html?utm_term=.1fcf5272051b
 
5
The Alexandria Division consists of the City of Alexandria and the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Fauquier,
Loudoun, Prince William and Stafford, as well as any other city or town within the geographical boundaries of those
counties.
 

4

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID# 1872
 
that the district court's failure to order a change of venue deprived him of a fair trial. Id. at 375377.
The Supreme Court noted the extensive pre-trial publicity surrounding the Enron collapse,
which included not only hard-news stories but also special interest pieces mocking the Enron
executives and inciting sympathy for Enron investors. Id. at 375, n. 8. However, the Supreme
Court rejected Skilling’s claim holding that the record did not support a finding of presumed
prejudice and, as a result, “declining to order a venue change, did not exceed constitutional
limitations.” Id. at 383-85.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court focused on the following factors and differentiated
Skilling from defendants in prior cases requiring a venue change. Specifically, the Court pointed
to: (1) the size and characteristics of the community; (2) whether the news stories contained
blatantly prejudicial information; (3) the time between the reported events and the trial; and (4)
evidence that the jury verdict undermined possible juror bias. Id. at 382-84.
While the Court used these standards to evaluate error in the district court’s decision to
deny a change of venue, several of the factors support the requested change of venue in Mr.
Manafort’s case. First, as to the size and characteristics of the community, the Alexandria Division
of the Eastern District of Virginia is far less populous than Houston. Perhaps more importantly,
while having a substantial population, the individuals residing in the division are far more likely
to have closely followed the developments and news coverage in the Manafort case in light of the
division’s close connection with the nation’s capital. This may be the rare case where a juror’s
predisposition may directly tie to their vote in the last presidential election. It is not a stretch to
expect that voters who supported Secretary Clinton would be predisposed against Mr. Manafort or
that voters who supported President Trump would be less inclined toward the Special Counsel.

5

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID# 1873
 
Notably, however, voters in the Alexandria Division voted 2-to-1 in favor of Secretary Clinton
(66% Clinton; 34% Trump).6 This split is more balanced in other places in Roanoke, Virginia,
located in the Western District of Virginia.
A simple Google search for articles about Russian collusion shows 2,900,000 results. As
the Court has pointed out, public interest in this case is far beyond what the Court would expect.
In fact, the amount of media coverage of the Special Counsel’s investigations is astounding. A
Google search for articles relating to Paul Manafort reveals 1,390,00 results. Reviewing these
articles, one is hard pressed to find any that are not unfavorable to Mr. Manafort. The news
coverage here has contained prejudicial information, including, but not limited to the false news
coverage as detailed in Mr. Manafort’s prior “leaks” motion (Dkt. 43), coverage of Mr. Manafort’s
recent jailing,7 and allegations regarding connections with Russian intelligence.8
Nowhere in the country is the bias against Mr. Manafort more apparent than here in the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The phrase “inside-the-beltway” was coined to capture the
area’s preoccupation with all things political. The Washington media market, including Maryland
and Virginia suburbs, is the sixth largest TV market in the United States with over 2,321,610 TV
                                                       
6

See https://results.elections.virginia.gov/vaelections/2016%20November%20General/Site/Presidential.html

 
7

See, e.g., Judge sends Paul Manafort to jail, pending trial, CNN, June 15, 2018. Available at:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/15/politics/judge-sends-paul-manafort-to-jail-pending-trial/index.html;
Judge Orders Paul Manafort Jailed Before Trial, Citing New Obstruction Charges, The New York Times, June 15,
2018. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/politics/manafort-bail-revoked-jail.html; and 
 
Paul Manafort ordered to jail after witness-tampering charges, The Washington Post, June 15, 2018. Available at: 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/manafort-ordered-to-jail-after-witness-tamperingcharges/2018/06/15/ccc526cc-6e68-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.95bcb30d02c6
8
See, e.g., Special counsel: Manafort, Gates worked with Russian intelligence agent, CBS News, March 28, 2018.
Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/special-counsel-manafort-gates-worked-with-russian-intelligenceagent/; and

Manafort and ally with Russian intel ties face new obstruction charges, CNN, June 8, 2018. Available at: 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/politics/paul-manafort-indictment-robert-mueller/index.html

6

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID# 1874
 
homes. See Top 100 Media Markets, News Generation.9 The Washington, D.C. metropolitan area
has over 60 online news outlets in addition to websites run by major print and broadcast media
companies. Gloria & Hadge, An Information Case Study, Washington, D.C., New America
Foundation, Aug. 5, 2010.10 It ranks first in the nation in households with computers (82.9%) and
internet access (80% of adults receiving information online). For news consumption, the city’s
major mainstream print and broadcast outlets command the most online page views in the United
States. In comparison, Roanoke is the 70th largest media outlet in the United States and 38% of
households in Roanoke lack broadband compared to 3% in Northern Virginia. See John Edwards,
Bringing broadband to rural Virginia, The Roanoke Times, February 28, 2018.11 Roanoke
represents a venue where the media coverage is substantially less than in the D.C. metropolitan
area.
The time between the reported events and the trial has been very short. Unlike in Skilling,
where the news coverage of the Enron bankruptcy more than four years before the trial had
diminished, the news coverage in Mr. Manafort case continues apace. Indeed, the news coverage
of the Special Counsel’s investigation (starting in May 2017); Mr. Manfort’s indictment in the
District of Columbia (October 2017); Mr. Manafort’s indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia
(February 2018); and Mr. Manafort’s remand (June 2018), has all taken place in the year leading
up to the scheduled July 25 trial. Moreover, some of the most prejudicial coverage has been in the

                                                       
9

Available at: https://www.newsgeneration.com/broadcast-resources/top-100-radio-markets/ (last visited July 6,
2018).
10

Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130909224854/http://mediapolicy.newamerica.net/publications/policy/an_informatio
n_community_case_study_washington_dc

11

Available at:
https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/edwards-bringing-broadband-to-rural-virginia/article_b50ec1077b88-515d-ab44-e8d133c7a62b.html

7

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID# 1875
 
last month. Based upon all of these factors and the intense, unfavorable pretrial publicity, Mr.
Manafort asks the Court to transfer this matter to Roanoke Virginia, well outside of the Washington
metropolitan area.
Mr. Manafort also asks the Court to adopt the voir dire practices approved by the Supreme
Court in Skilling. These include: (1) the use of a jury questionnaire; (2) voir dire by the Court
designed to address the topics included in Mr. Manafort’s proposed voir dire questions (Dkt. 102);
and (3) a substantial increase in the number of jurors in the venire that will be summoned to Court
for the trial. 561 U.S. at 370-75.
In reviewing the Skilling trial for actual prejudice, and finding none, the Supreme Court
carefully reviewed and generally approved of the jury selection process used by the district court.
Id. at 386-98. The Supreme Court described the detailed questionnaire, which included 77questions over 14 pages that were generally open-ended allowing the jurors to provide meaningful
information. Id. at 371. The questionnaire was sent out to 400 prospective jurors. Id. at 372. The
Supreme Court demonstrated the importance of the questionnaires by finding they “confirmed that,
whatever community prejudice existed in Houston generally, Skilling’s juror were not under its
sway.” Id. at 391. In addition to the questionnaire, the Supreme Court favorably noted that the
district court in Skilling asked questions related to pretrial publicity to each juror individually. Id.
at 389. This approach is similar to the practice the Court has indicated it would apply in Mr.
Manafort’s case.
Mr. Manafort submits that a fair trial will impossible without a change of venue to
Roanoke, Virginia. Mr. Manafort also respectfully asks the Court to adopt the additional steps
discussed above when summoning the venire and conducting voir dire.

8

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID# 1876
 
WHEREFORE, Defendant Manafort respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case
to Roanoke, Virginia for trial and asks the Court to adopt the procedures described above in its
jury selection process.
Dated: July 6, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin M. Downing
Kevin M. Downing (pro hac vice)
Law Office of Kevin M. Downing
601 New Jersey Avenue NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 754-1992
kevindowning@kdowninglaw.com
s/ Thomas E. Zehnle
Thomas E. Zehnle (VSB No. 27755)
Law Office of Thomas E. Zehnle
601 New Jersey Avenue NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 368-4668
tezehnle@gmail.com
s/ Jay R. Nanavati
Jay R. Nanavati (VSB No. 44391)
Kostelanetz & Fink LLP
601 New Jersey Avenue NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 875-8000
jnanavati@kflaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr.

9

 

 Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 107 Filed 07/06/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID# 1877
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 6th day of July, 2018, I will electronically file the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing
(NEF) to the following:
Andrew A. Weissman
Greg D. Andres
Uzo Asonye
U.S. Department of Justice
Special Counsel’s Office
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 616-0800
Email: AAW@usdoj.gov
GDA@usdoj.gov
UEA@usdoj.gov
s/ Jay R. Nanavati
Jay R. Nanavati (VSB No. 44391)
Kostelanetz & Fink LLP
601 New Jersey Avenue NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 875-8000
jnanavati@kflaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr.

10