Judge Maxwell Wiley said in a 26-page ruling granting Manafort's motion for dismissal that the charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance were too similar to those Manafort was convicted of last August. A jury then found Manafort guilty on eight counts of bank and tax fraud charges, but could not agree on the other 10 charges stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on those counts.

New York Playbook Our must-read briefing informing the daily conversation among knowledgeable New Yorkers. Sign Up Loading By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

New York prosecutors have argued that exceptions in the state's double jeopardy law allowed them to bring similar charges, but Wiley ruled Wednesday that the state had failed to show that those exceptions were applicable to Manafort's case.

When announcing the state charges earlier this year, Vance said that the new indictment involved “serious criminal charges for which the defendant has not been held accountable.” The state charges have long been viewed as a shield from any potential pardon handed down by the president, who can only pardon federal crimes.

But Wiley’s ruling found fault with New York prosecutors’ argument that Manafort had not been “previously prosecuted” — as defined by the state — for several of the hung bank fraud charges in part because they were dismissed “without prejudice” as a condition of his later plea deal as long as Manafort admitted to the conduct underlying the charges.

That conduct was also a consideration in his lengthened sentence, Wiley noted, and at the time U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III appeared to doubt whether Manafort could be charged again for the counts in question.

The lack of a “specific directive” from the court stating Manafort could or should be charged again, coupled with an argument from prosecutors that Wiley said “strains reason” and showed a “disregard the clear meaning” of Ellis’ words, formed part of the basis for his decision.

He also pointed out that case law relating to the exception Vance sought did not contain any “factual scenario remotely similar to the one at hand.”

On the other counts, Wiley found that prosecutors “failed to establish that the harm or evil each statute is designed to prevent is very different in kind from the federal statutes for which defendant was previously prosecuted,” another condition of New York’s double jeopardy law.

Todd Blanche, an attorney for Manafort, praised Wiley's ruling in a statement.

"We have said since the day this indictment was made public that it was politically motivated and violated New York’s statutory double jeopardy law. We thank Judge Wiley for his careful consideration of our motion and his thoughtful opinion dismissing the charges against Mr. Manafort," Blanche said. "This indictment should never have been brought, and today’s decision is a stark reminder that the law and justice should always prevail over politically-motivated actions.

Vance's office, meanwhile, vowed to fight the dismissal after Wiley's ruling.

“We will appeal today’s decision and will continue working to ensure that Mr. Manafort is held accountable for the criminal conduct against the People of New York that is alleged in the indictment,” said Danny Frost, a spokesperson for Vance.

If the dismissal is upheld, it would strike a major blow to efforts to insulate Manafort from a presidential pardon or commutation.

Manafort was not in the courtroom for Wednesday’s hearing in Manhattan, as he is recovering in the hospital from what a lawyer described Tuesday as a “cardiac event” he suffered last week.