Advanced Law & Trial Internship Summit

Team Ginsburg

Our Case: Federal Fraud Investigation

Our Internship Court Case

United States v. Manafort

Case Overview

Virginia Trial

District of Columbia Trial


Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018, with District Judge T. S. Ellis III presiding. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering.

Manafort was scheduled to be tried on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, failing to register as a foreign agent, money laundering, witness tampering and making false statements.

In the District of Columbia Manafort plead guilty to two charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering. He also admitted to all other charges against him, both in DC and those for which there was a hung jury at his first trial in Virginia.

In Virginia, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account.

Witness Preparation

Witness Preparation

For a client granted immunity to testify in the United States v. Manafort trials.

Review Client Prep Work

Case Review

Our team worked with lead attorney David P. Weber to read through many complex case documents and prepare one of the trial’s star witnesses for her in-court testimony.

Our witness was one of only five witnesses who were granted immunity by the Special Counsel.

The entire team worked around the clock to help prepare our client to take the stand.

We gained valuable real-life experience as they worked on one of the most prolific cases in modern history.

As interns of Goodwin Weber PLLC, we focused our efforts on the nationally famous Paul Manafort Case.


Witness Preparation

Witness Evaluation and Preparation

We met with our witness for the Manafort case and were instructed to call her Ms. Jane Doe. In order to prepare her for trial, we first listened to her story. When we met with Ms. Doe, she explained how she first became involved in the case, what actions she took, as well as the effects that this case has had on her current life. We took notes on everything she said to help us prepare her cross-examination.

After meeting with Ms. Doe to discuss the facts of the case, we worked with David P. Weber and his team for the rest of the week to create a meaningful cross-examination.

We gave our cross-examinations to Ms. Doe before the trial in order to prepare her to take the stand.

Our team gained real-life experience as we prepared the witness for trial and cross-examination.

Through this process, we learned about the many different ways to question a witness, as well as the ins and outs of courtroom procedure.


Witness Preparation

Risk Assessment and Strategies

Attorney David P. Weber and his team taught us about the risks and strategies associated with being an attorney. We learned in depth about “Attorney-Client Privilege,” the difference between a secret and a confidence. We now possess a greater understanding of the ethical responsibilities between lawyers and their clients and how we needed to protect our client. Mr. Weber talked about his practice and shared the assessment risks he keeps in mind when taking on a new client.

Throughout the rest of the week, we focused our attention on learning the strategies used during litigation.

We learned more about the case and were given examples of how rhetorical strategies can be used in practice with great effect.

We successfully incorporated these strategies into our cross-examination which were to be given as a final presentation.


Witness Preparation

Georgetown University Law Center

Cross-Examination Prep At The

At the end of the week, we performed our cross-examinations of Ms. Doe at the Georgetown University Law Center, Moot Courtroom. Our team had been preparing this cross-examination throughout the entire week by meeting with experts and learning new techniques to ensure that it would be effective preparation for Ms. Doe.

The cross-examinations were set up to resemble the courtroom and procedures that Ms. Doe will encounter when she takes the stand to give her testimony. Our team sat at the counsel table while Ms. Doe took the witness stand. As a team, we had 20 minutes to give our cross-examination of Ms. Doe, and 10 minutes to hear feedback from David P. Weber.

After our cross was given, Ms. Doe stated she felt more prepared herself for the real cross-examination she would have to face as a witness.

We played a crucial part in making sure Ms. Doe was prepared for court. The questions we asked in our cross were some of the ones used in Ms. Does’ trial prep from the Special Counsel's office.


Witness Prepeartion

Our Witness Prep Internship Team

Case Accomplishments And Updates

Goodwin Weber PLLC Internship Highlights

PLLC Internship

Goodwin Weber

Goodwin Weber

Ms. Doe was later cross-examined by the Special Counsel's office and used our prep work to be prepared for these interviews.

In the final presentation, we gave our cross-examination of Ms. Doe in a real courtroom setting to simulate the actual trial experience.

The witness we prepped was one of only five witnesses who were granted immunity by the Special Counsel.

As a team, we read through many complex case documents and prepared one of the trial’s star witnesses for in-court testimony.

Our team interned for Goodwin Weber PLLC. We worked with top attorney David P. Weber and focused our efforts on the nationally famous Paul Manafort Case.

Witness Preparation

The United States V. Paul Manafort

Our preparation enabled Ms. Doe to gain an overall better understanding of the case and to appreciate the purpose of her testimony in a broader context.

The preparation assisted in our client developing the factual record advantageously and enabled Ms. Doe to ward off attacks to her credibility.

The detailed witness preparation allowed our client to deal with challenging issues and make certain that the witness had a strategy for addressing difficult questions from opposing counsel.


with the client in Georgetown University's Moot Courtroom

Over 16 hours of witness cross-examination preparation

Legal Expert Panel

Partner at Barnes & Thornburg

Former US Attorney For The District of Columbia

Roscoe C. Howard, Jr.

Dan Pond

Staff Attorney

Public Defender Service

Sarah C. Stiles, Ph.D., J.D.

Georgetown University

Roscoe Howard, Jr. is a partner in Barnes & Thornburg’s Litigation Department in their Washington, D.C., office. He is a member of the White Collar and Investigations Practice Group. Dan Pond is a criminal defense attorney who has dedicated his career to working as a public defender representing indigent people at all stages of the criminal justice system, from initial arrest through trial and incarceration, and eventually back into the community.

Professor Sarah Stiles of Georgetown University lead our team to engage in a debate between Roscoe C. Howard, Jr. and Dan Pond on their different points of view of law and their experiences as a criminal defense attorney and a prosecutor. We had the opportunity to ask questions about difficult cases which enabled us to understand the ethical aspects of the justice system better.

Washington D.C. Police Officer Case Panel

We learned about topics such as civil and criminal law, human rights, the distinctions between state, federal, and local laws, felonies and misdemeanors, and other facets of the legal system. We were even briefed on crime scene and homicide investigations. We now have a better understanding of the justice system and ethical and political issues associated with policing.

Two District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Officers visited to discuss how local government and law enforcement officials work in the nation's capital. The discussion was delivered by experienced senior police officers who brought a wealth of theoretical and practical knowledge to enhance our understanding of the law.

Courtney exposed our team to the idea of the school-to-prison pipeline and the ‘War on Drugs’ that targets African American men, women, and children to a greater extent than others in our society.

He brought with him recently released inmates who spoke out about their criminal history and their life before, during, and after prison.

Listening to the returning citizens speak out about their experiences and gave our team a deeper understanding of how important it is that all people are properly represented in the court of law.

National Re-Entry Panel

in Washington, D.C. is a prison reform advocate who was released from prison in 1985.

Courtney Stewart who chairs the National Reentry Network for Returning Citizens