Legal Random, Random

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

Excuse me for my ignorance in legalese, but: why ALLEGED? Isn't it clear that he was the shooter? Whatever defense they are planning on using?

[ti-amie]

Also, if it can be shown that he planned this can he be found insane?

And don't forget his "Parent's of the Year" who were going to leave him to face his fate alone.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Summary from @KlasfeldReports of the AUSA and Michael Avenatti's closing remarks. Avenatti is representing himself.

Good morning from New York.

It’s Groundhog Day… again, which means proceedings in yet another federal trial against Michael Avenatti.

Closing arguments are expected to start this morning in the Stormy Daniels case.

Follow along here, @lawcrimenews
"All rise"

The jury is entering.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Sobelman is up:

"The defendant was a lawyer who stole from his own client. She thought that he was her own advocate, but he betrayed her."

And he told lies to cover it up, the AUSA says.

"The defendant's lies and betrayal were exposed."
That line very much echoes that the one by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Rohrbach during opening statements a little more than a week ago. lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/…
AUSA:

"He lied to Ms. Daniels for months to cover it up."

In February 2019, Avenatti got caught up in his own "web of lies," he adds.

The prosecutor says the jury has a "mountain of evidence" before it.
AUSA: Why did the defendant lie in those messages? He knew that [the money] did not belong to him. He stole it.
Prosecutors show this text exchange between Avenatti and Daniels to the jury, noting that the publisher wasn't late with the payment, as she thought.

Avenatti had it and didn't tell her, he notes.

Good morning from New York.

It’s Groundhog Day… again, which means proceedings in yet another federal trial against Michael Avenatti.

Closing arguments are expected to start this morning in the Stormy Daniels case.

Follow along here, @lawcrimenews
"All rise"

The jury is entering.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Sobelman is up:

"The defendant was a lawyer who stole from his own client. She thought that he was her own advocate, but he betrayed her."

And he told lies to cover it up, the AUSA says.

"The defendant's lies and betrayal were exposed."
That line very much echoes that the one by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Rohrbach during opening statements a little more than a week ago. lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/…
AUSA:

"He lied to Ms. Daniels for months to cover it up."

In February 2019, Avenatti got caught up in his own "web of lies," he adds.

The prosecutor says the jury has a "mountain of evidence" before it.
AUSA: Why did the defendant lie in those messages? He knew that [the money] did not belong to him. He stole it.
Prosecutors show this text exchange between Avenatti and Daniels to the jury, noting that the publisher wasn't late with the payment, as she thought.

Avenatti had it and didn't tell her, he notes.



The prosecutor shows the jury a similar exchange from October 2018.

AUSA: That was false. The publisher didn't owe Ms. Daniels anything. It was the defendant who took her money.



AUSA: Another category of lies was telling Daniels that he would threaten litigation against the publisher to get the money.

In fact, he says, the publisher sent Avenatti the money and he spent it by that time.



Note: I deleted an old version of the previous tweet for clarity and grammar.
Prosecution slide—

"The Defendant Broke Rules to Steal Money"

"When a lawyer receives any money on behalf of a client, the lawyer must deposit the money into a bank account labeled as a client trust bank account, and must promptly notify the client of the receipt of the funds."
AUSA says that Avenatti also broke notification rule.
Prosecution slide: "The Defendant Was Desperate for Money"

Avenatti's assistant testified that his law firm couldn't afford the basics, like rent and health insurance, the prosecutor noted.
AUSA: "The defendant's law firm was broke. That is one of the reasons that he stole Ms. Daniels's money."
AUSA: "That explains why he stole Ms. Daniels's money, but it doesn't excuse his crimes."
AUSA says that another reason the jury should know Avenatti is guilty is that he "played dumb when he got caught."
AUSA says of Daniels: "She could not believe that her trusted lawyer could have lied to her every day for months."

He shows this text message as an example of Avenatti "playing dumb."



The exchange continues.

AUSA: "She told you that this was her 'mic drop' moment."

That moment is illustrated in these texts from Feb. 19, 2019.



Avenatti claims that he was entitled to a portion of Daniels's book advance, but the prosecutor says that text messages demolish that defense.

AUSA: "If he thought the money was actually his, he would have just said so."
The prosecutor skewers what he calls Avenatti's "'I deserve it' defense."

Whatever work Avenatti did for Daniels does not give him a "free pass" to defraud her, he tells the jury.
AUSA Sobelman takes on Avenatti's "distraction" about Stormy Daniels's belief in the paranormal:

"Has she had some unusual experiences? Yes. Does she have some unusual beliefs? Sure."
Defense summation begins.


P1

[ti-amie]

Defense Summary

Avenatti: "Ladies and gentlemen, good morning."

He talks about his father selling hot dogs at a ballpark.

Objection.
Sustained.
Avenatti: "The government just told you a lot of things. They just represented to you a lot of things. So let's deal with one of the things that they just represented to you moments ago."

He focuses on the claim that he kept Daniels away from her agent, Luke Janklow.
Avenatti quotes Janklow calling Stormy Daniels "impulsively mercenary" in November 2018.

"Now, let's talk about Ms. Daniels. Some of you may admire Ms. Daniels," Avenatti says.

He says that he understands that because he did,too.
Avenatti:

"I was her advocate. I was her champion. The evidence shows that I put it all on the line for Ms. Daniels because I believed in her, and I waned to help her. I too admired her, perhaps more than anyone else in her life."

Avenatti: "Let's talk about attorneys. A lot of people don't like attorneys."

But when you need one, you need one, he says.
Avenatti says that Daniels needed one who wouldn't be scared off to go up against Trump.

"I didn't agree to do it for free. Attorneys, like most professionals, cost money."
Michael Avenatti: "Let me be clear: Michael Avenatti never committed the crime of wire fraud. Michael Avenatti never committed the crime of aggravated identity theft."
Michael Avenatti adds later:

"There is insufficient evidence to show that Michael Avenatti ever intended to harm Stormy Daniels."
(Note: There was a long exchange yesterday about how Michael Avenatti's use of the third person could avert lapsing into testimony, which would not be permitted during summations.)
Avenatti: "People expect to be paid for what they do. There is nothing controversial, or should not be anything controversial, about that basic concept."
Avenatti: "The evidence shows that we took the fight to Donald Trump, and the evidence shows that we had success in doing shows."

He says that the evidence shows that was the reason for the book deal.
Avenatti: "The evidence shows that I was instrumental in securing the book deal, finalizing the book deal," working with Daniels's agent and working on PR to make sure the book showed.

Michael Avenatti:

"According to the government, Michael Avenatti could never have believed that he had the right to be paid. That is ludicrous, and it is not supported by the evidence."
Avenatti: "Ladies and gentlemen, this was my money. This was the firm's money. This wasn't Ms. Daniels's money."
Typo: ***sold, not "showed."
Catch up on summations so far, with relevant background, here. lawandcrime.com/live-trials/li…
A saying that Avenatti repeats throughout summations—and previously in the trial:

"Once again, a trial is a fight for credibility."
He tells the jury that the judge will instruct them if the defendant has a reasonable belief that the money is his, even if that belief is mistaken, they must find him not guilty.
Throughout Avenatti's summation, the government objects whenever he appears to lapse into testimony.

Judge Furman repeatedly reminds the jury that his remarks are not evidence.
Avenatti: "Then we get to the big lie."

He points to questions from Judge Furman to Daniels.

Judge Furman: Is it correct that you never said to Mr. Avenatti that this account was closed?

He points to questions from Judge Furman to Daniels.

Judge Furman: Is it correct that you never said to Mr. Avenatti that this account was closed?

Daniels: No.

Court: No?

Daniels: I didn't tell him it was closed.
That answer from Daniels was completely false, Avenatti claims.
Avenatti: "Ms. Daniels lied on the stand."

He claims that Daniels was trying to keep money hidden from her then-husband.
Avenatti asks for proof that he said he wouldn't take any portion of the book deal.

"Where is that text message? Where is that email? Where is that voicemail?"

"It doesn't exist."
Repeated prosecutorial objections on the grounds that the government is not on trial.
Avenatti says the evidence shows that he could have communicated better with Ms. Daniels.

"There is no question about that, and I accept responsibility for that."

Objection.
Sustained, and the jury will disregard that statement.

"We were drowning in work," he says, comparing that that period to "drinking out of a firehouse."

During this soliloquy, the government objects, and the judge reminds the jury this is argument, not testimony.
Avenatti: "Ladies and gentlemen, failing to communicate effectively is not a crime."
Avenatti emphasizes the presumption of innocence.

"I don't even have to be up here speaking to you now. The entire burden rests with the government. It is their obligation, and it is their obligation to prove this case and every element of the case beyond a reasonable doubt."
(Deleted a prior version of the above tweet to correct an obvious typo—and then took a big sip of my morning coffee.)
Avenatti: "To conclude, I will leave you with this. I'm Italian. I like Italian food."

Objection.
Sustained.
Avenatti:

"The case the government is trying to feed you has a giant cockroach in the middle of the plate. Would you eat that dish or would you send it back? I submit that you would sent it back."
Back from the lunch break.

AUSA Podolsky is up for the prosecution rebuttal summation.

"The defendant's arguments in this case do not make sense."
AUSA to Avenatti: "That man took someone else's money. That's what this case is about."
AUSA:

"One of the things you would not do" if you thought you deserved the money "is lie."
Podolsky notes that Avenatti did get paid—via the crowdfunding method provided in the contract.

He wasn't entitled to more, he adds.
Podolsky on Avenatti attacking Stormy Daniels's paranormal beliefs:

"Ask yourself: What does any of that have to do with anything, anything?"

"She can believe whatever she wants and still be stolen from by the defendant and still deserve not to be."

AUSA: "The defendant cannot even articulate what she might be lying about."
Referring to Avenatti's text messages claiming not to know about Stormy Daniels's payment, the AUSA asks: "Ask yourself one simple question, why did he lie?"

The prosecutor says there's only one answer to that question: because Avenatti is guilty.

Rebuttal summations conclude.

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

A porn star sues her own lawyer.
And I can't find the jokes. Damn, I am getting old...

[ti-amie]

from Matthew Russell Lee for/as @InnerCityPress

OK - now Sarah Palin v. NYT starts with Judge Rakoff hearing arguments on what can be included in opening statements. Inner City Press, on alert for Avenatti verdict, is covering Palin v. NYT innercitypress.com/sdny44krakoffp… and will live tweet, thread below

Lawyer: I have a question on voir dire. Do you allow back striking?

Judge Rakoff: I don't know what that is. Let me explain how I choose juries, as they were in this court for 50 years, good enough for Learned Hand, good enough for me.

Judge Rakoff: We have 82 jurors. Because of COVID, some in a separate room. We're choosing 9. I question the first 9. Maybe 1 or 2 is excused for cause. Number 10 moves up. Then each side gets three challenges, in rounds. See you at 10. Thread will continue.
Judge Rakoff is back, and says: I thought I had excluded The Atlantic article(s), or said he'd have to deal with them as they come up. Do you want to use them in openings?

Answer: Yes.

Judge Rakoff: OK. If they end up not coming in, your adversary can use it.

Judge Rakoff: The idea, I guess, is that since Mr. Bennet was the big honcho at The Atlantic, he should be expected to know what's in the magazine. But didn't he say he had read the articles?

A: He only said it was possible he read it. That's not enough of a link

A: They were in an Andrew Sullivan blog that was Atlantic-adjacent. There's another by the National Journal, under the Atlantic's corporate rubric. There's no connection that suggested Mr. Bennet read them.

Judge Rakoff: I want to hear from plaintiff's counsel.

Palin's lawyer: We asked Mr. Bennet at his deposition and he said it was possible he read them.

Judge Rakoff: I just heard he said No, No, Maybe. That's a think reed.

Palin's lawyer: That goes to a credibility issue. This was a significant event at the Times.

Palin's lawyer: While these were technically blogs, they were all published through The Atlantic.

Judge Rakoff: I'm inclined to think that you can at opening argument says that Mr. Bennet made no effort to check out the prior state of knowledge.
NYT's lawyer: We hope they don't try to bring up Mr. Bennet's brother.
[Apparently they won't bring up the Senator. Here's another Senator, @SenJeffMerkley, who yesterday rightly called UNSG @antonioguterres "shameful" on China: innercitypress.com/genocidegames6…

Now in Jury Assembly Room for Palin v NYT jury selection. SDNY staffer tells prospective jurors, Now is the time to silence your phone, if you don't want to be the center of attention with your special ring tone. It's jury duty time. Voir dire below #CourtCaseCast

Judge Rakoff: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin, we're going to swear you in.

[It's done, by Courtroom deputy]
Judge Rakoff: This is a civil case that will take 2 weeks at most, probably less. We're picking a jury of 9. Please pay close attention
Judge Rakoff: The parties in this case are well known. You may have views. But that's an irrelevancy. What's important is the American sense of fair play - jurors put aside their views and look at the facts.
Judge Rakoff: Let me address jurors 1 through 9. Let me tell you about this case. The plaintiff is Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and former VP candidate. The defendant is the NYT. Ms. Palin claims the Times libeled her.
Judge Rakoff: The Times says while they may have made one or two errors in editorial but they quickly corrected it. Anyone can't be fair? Very good. We'll sit from 9:30 to 3:30. The lawyer will have to be here at 9. We want you to avoid rush hour.
Judge Rakoff: We have had, in the SDNY during the pandemic, 106 jury trials. Not a single juror has come down with COVID 19. We're very proud of that. We're going to have our first witnesses today. What we can't control is how long the jury takes. [See, Avenatti]
Judge Rakoff's courtroom deputy announces that Juror 1 is excused, (former) Number 11 moves up to take the place.
Judge Rakoff: Congratulations, you've moved up from 11 to 1.

[After a time]

Deputy: Juror 11 is excused.

Update: The jury is selected - before lunch, as Judge Rakoff predicted, and contrary to multiday US v. Ghislaine Maxwell process which is now, post verdict, embroiled in scandal of Juror 50 / Scotty David.

Judge Rakoff's deputy says, Pick up your boxed lunch

And now, in Palin v NYT, opening arguments.

Palin's lawyer: Your feelings about Governor Palin or the NYT are irrelevant. Just give us a fair shot. This case involves a very specific false narrative about Gov Palin that was debunked. Let's go through the editorial
Palin's lawyer: Against a backdrop of a liberal shooting going after Republicans, there was a kneejerk reaction by some to say it was all political. But Governor Palin said, Don't blame Bernie Sanders. I know. This has happened to me. But the NYT did the opposite
Palin's lawyer: The NYT called the VA shooting, and the 2011 AZ shooting a sickening pattern. You'll learn from Mr. Bennet himself when he testifies that that is false. There was no evidence.
Palin's lawyer: Mr. Bennet in his email says, "I don't know what the truth is." That's the day after he published. That's reckless. Now he sends people to research it. He'll claim it was just a mistake. But then why do the research?

Judge Rakoff: Counsel, just so that you know, you have two minutes.

Palin's lawyer: We're going to show you a history of bias by the New York Times. You'll learn that the NYT has a policy against apologizing. They don't have to. They are the New York Times.
NYT lawyer: The NYT apologized. But it was not actual malice. Let's look back at 2010 - a PAC associated with Governor Palin, SarahPac, published a map with cross-hairs
NYT Lawyer: It was natural to try to connect those two shootings... Ms. Palin's name was not in the headline. A casual reader might skip right by it. There were four paragraphs about gun policy. This was not a political hit job. It praised President Trump
NYT lawyer: You're going to hear that Ross Douthat wrote to Mr. Bennet at 11 pm. Mr. Bennet said he never intended to convey that message. James started a process - the Times did not try to defend it, the Times tried to set the record straight in 12 hours.
NYT lawyer: Governor Palin is not claiming she suffered any economic harm as a result of the editorial. She went on to write books, she made paid speeches. She talked about running for office, just a few weeks ago. She was a TV star.
Judge Rakoff: Soon you can take your lunch, then hear my legal instructions to help frame things. But first, some housekeeping: don't discuss the case. Don't read or listen to the media about this. Don't try to do your own research. You'll get the real stuff here
OK - Palin v. NYT jurors are back from lunch.

Judge Rakoff: The plaintiff Sarah Palin claims she was libeled by an editorial largely written by the defendant, James Bennet. It would published online, then in the print edition the next day.
Judge Rakoff: Starting at 11:15 am, the Times published two corrections, stating no such link was established... Call your first witness.

Elizabeth Williamson, NYT reporter since 2018. "Now I'm a feature writer, based in DC." Previously on the editorial board.
Palin's lawyer: You were in a documentary?
Williamson: Yes, a Frontline piece about conspiracy theories. And another one about our post-truth culture.
Palin's lawyer: What do you mean by that?
Williamson: People disregarding established truths.
Palin's lawyer: Did you write about Governor Palin?
Williamson: I traveled to Wasila and wrote a blog piece.
Palin's lawyer: Have you ever met her?
Williamson: No.
Palin's lawyer: Then how did you write about her?

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Re Avenatti jury deliberations:

[ti-amie]

Definition of an Allen Charge:

https://fija.org/library-and-resources/ ... harge.html