Jurors must protect the truth and respect the law, no matter what. Paula Duncan knew that, as she was involved in Paul Manafort’s trial. Despite her supporting President Donald Trump, she wanted to do what was right.
Although she wished that circumstances were different and that she could declare his innocence, there was proof for Manafort’s guilt. So, she acted accordingly. But why is it so important to protect the truth, even if you want such a person to be innocent? Well, let’s find out.
Paula Duncan – Who Is She?
Paula Duncan is a juror who was involved in the Paul Manafort trial, and she was one of the 12 jurors who convicted him on eight counts for financial crime. Even though she probably didn’t seek fame, she received it after this case was over. She was also the only juror to speak out after the trial came to an end.
Being a Trump supporter as she declared, she wished Manafort was innocent. However, the fact that there was evidence to support his guilt was undeniable. Consequently, she declared him guilty.
Still, she talked about how hard this was for her. As much as she wanted Manafort to be innocent, she is still a juror – and had to act accordingly. She needed to have due diligence and be deliberate – therefore taking a good look at all the evidence provided against him. She had to make a wise decision – and so she did.
The Paul Manafort Case
Paul Manafort is a man who helped President Donald Trump secure the White House’s Republican nomination. However, he was recently found guilty on 8 out of 18 counts of financial fraud.
Basically, Manafort was guilty on five counts of submitting false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to report foreign bank and financial accounts. Consequently, he faces a maximum of 80 years in prison.
The other 10 counts were declared a mistrial, and the judge gave the prosecutors one week to decide if they would seek a retrial on them.
Although he was found guilty on 8 counts, something happened at the trial. There was one holdout, while the other jurors believed Manafort was guilty. The same juror refused to touch the other 10 counts and caused the mistrial – as well as a partial conviction on the others.
According to Paula Duncan, they all did their best to convince the juror to change her opinion. The holdout juror was told to look at the paper trail, and the papers were laid in front of her multiple times. Even then, she refused to change her vote. Apparently, she had a reasonable reason for doing so. The other jurors kept trying for an extended period, but with no success. As a result, the trial ended the way it did: 10 counts with no verdict.
According to Duncan, the deliberations were both emotional and heated, as there were even tears sometimes. Trump’s name came up too, but the jury ensured politics were kept out of the case.
Duncan declared that she believes they all should have gone there with the assumption that Paul Manafort was innocent – at least until proven guilty. Eventually, they applied the witnesses, notes, evidence, and the verdict was “guilty” on eight of the counts.
Why Must the Truth Be Protected?
When it comes to the truth’s protection, it must be protected at all costs. This is fairly obvious because as we know, lying can have consequences.
Saying the truth, and only the truth, should always be the way in any case. Lying not only comes with many consequences, but it also makes a person look bad if the lie is discovered. As a consequence, people won’t even trust you anymore. Saying the truth makes you a reliable person – and you will also gain the people’s appreciation.
Also, in some special cases, such as when it comes to law, the truth is even more important. If you did something that’s against the law, for example, and you lie about, you will receive harsher punishment when the truth is found out. Even worse than if you said the truth.
If you’re a juror, the truth is basically in your job description – to find out the truth and act according to it. Lying to protect someone who did something bad makes you not only look unreliable but also as an accomplice. The truth must be protected, despite your personal thoughts and emotions.
Paula Duncan is a good example when it comes to protecting the truth. Even if she is a Trump supporter and wished Manafort was innocent, she voted guilty. The evidence was there, and nobody is above the law, even those you appreciate.
Final Thoughts
Paula Duncan was a role model for other people. In spite of wishing Paul Manafort wasn’t guilty, the evidence suggested the opposite. She did her job properly and wasn’t influenced by the fact that she is a Trump supporter. The truth must always be told, because not only does it make you reliable, but it can also potentially save other people as well.
