Case Document 264 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 2 Page D# 5604

IIVU lull-l MUAV

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 
Criminal No. 
PAUL J. MANAFORT. JR, 
Defendant. 
QRDER

The trial in this matter consumed sixteen days, including twelve days of evidence
presentation and four days of jury deliberation. In the end, the jury advised the Court that it could
not reach a unanimous verdict on Counts the
Superscding Indictment. This oceaned after the jury. Without objection. received an instruction
pursuant to United States v. Sawyers, 423 F.2d 1335, 1342 (4th Cir. 1970). and after the jurors
were asked individually to advise the Court whether there was any reasonable prospect that the
jury could reach a unanimOus verdict on all counts if they deliberated ?mher. Thejurors
answered individually that there was no reasonable prospect that they could reach a unanimous
verdict on all counts With further deliberation. Accordingly. the Court concluded that there was a
manifest necessity to deolure a mistrial on those counts. See Arizona 0. Washington. 434 11.3.
497, 509 (1978): Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 895 (4th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly. it is hereby ORDERED, for good cause. that there is a mistrial with respect
to Counts ll01' the Superseding Indictment.

It is further ORDERED that the government ?le notice by August 29. 2018 on whether it
intends to retry or to dismiss any or all of Counts llthe

Superseding indictment.

Case Document 264 Filed 08/22/18 Page 2 of 2 Page D# 5605
V?'d ?151m

'i'he Clerk is directed to send a copy ofthis Order to all counsel of record.

Alexandria, Virginia
August 22, 2018

Is! 1
T. 5. Ellis, 111
United States Dis 'ct Judge