“This is a complete defeat for Paul Manafort,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in Illinois, told me shortly after Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman was found guilty on eight criminal counts, including tax and bank fraud, brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. “I could never convince one of my clients that being convicted on eight felony counts is a victory in any way, shape, or form.”

After four days of deliberations in an Alexandria, Virginia, courthouse, the jury in the Manafort trial sent a note to U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III just after 4 P.M. on Tuesday afternoon. The six men and six women had reached a guilty verdict on 8 of the 18 total criminal charges—in all, Manafort was found guilty of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to properly register a foreign bank account. On the other 10 charges, the jurors were unable to reach a consensus, prompting Ellis to declare a mistrial on the remaining counts.

Hours earlier, just before noon, Ellis had sent the jury back to continue deliberations after the jurors signaled they were deadlocked on at least one count. But after approximately four more hours they were still unable to reach a consensus, forcing Ellis’s hand. John Marston, a former Washington, D.C., assistant U.S. attorney, explained that split verdicts such as this are not uncommon in white-collar cases when a jury can’t agree unanimously on all counts. “The reason they don’t just keep sending them back is the judge is not allowed to sort of coerce a jury or jurors into coming to a conclusion . . . judges have to be somewhat careful in this process,” Marston told me. “If you start putting extra pressure on the jury to go back and go deal with the rest of these counts, you risk losing the [existing] unanimity.” And ultimately, the additional charges may not have any impact on a defendant’s sentence under federal guidelines. “You can be convicted of 1 out of 18 counts or you can be convicted on 18 out of 18 and it isn’t going to make a huge difference in sentencing,” Marston said.

Mariotti agreed, noting that Ellis can take all of Manafort’s conduct—even conduct connected to charges on which he was not found guilty—into consideration when determining his sentence. “Effectively, he is going to face the same sentence that he would have faced if he was convicted on all eighteen counts,” he told me. “As a practical matter, he has completely lost in this trial.”

After a parade of 27 government witnesses, 350 exhibits submitted by the prosecution, and testimony from Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime business associate and No. 2 on the Trump campaign, the verdict did not come as much of a surprise to lawyers I spoke with, despite days of speculation that the delay in reaching a verdict boded well for the defense. “Not unexpected,” Sol Wisenberg, who served as a deputy prosecutor in the Starr investigation, said bluntly via e-mail when asked about the denouement. “Question now is will he flip?”

That Manafort did not cut a deal with Mueller—unlike Gates, George Papadopoulos, and Mike Flynn, all fellow Trump campaign veterans—has long been a point of speculation. And despite Tuesday’s verdict, the longtime Republican operative’s legal headaches are far from over. To begin with, the prosecution could call for a second trial to address the 10 counts on which Ellis declared a mistrial—a move that would recall the high-profile cases of actor Bill Cosby and former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Then, next month, Manafort is set to stand trial in a Washington, D.C., courtroom for a second set of charges brought by Mueller that stem from his lobbying work in Ukraine. He could yet decide to cooperate with the special counsel, who is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 election—following Tuesday’s verdict, Manafort defense attorney Kevin Downing said that his client is “evaluating all of his options at this point.”