And so, ported over from another of my properties, as of one week ago -- here is a searing preview of Mr. Greebel's evidence (Mr. Shkreli's former corporate counsel, while at Retrophin) against Mr. Shkreli's defense of "advice of counsel":
A pair of dueling motions to sever were filed last Friday afternoon.
In truth, they aren't dueling at all -- as to the propriety of severance. Both argue it is clearly appropriate. And (as I've long-predicted) the able Judge Matsumoto in Brooklyn will grant the severance.
The motions are widely divergent, however, on the critical issue of which of the defendants was the "mastermind" -- of the allegedly fraudulent schemes that led to their nearly simultaneous arrests, and eight count felony indictments in Manhattan, in December of 2015. For pure salacious details, I recommend reading Mr. Greebel's first -- it is a weighty 44 page PDF file.
At the bottom, I've linked Mr. Shkreli's -- it makes for far less interesting reading. [And separately, I should note that Mr. Shkreli harshly criticized Cooley and Akin Gump (without providing any evidence as to why he thinks poorly of them), in his Facebook posts of about ten days ago. Cooley of course, represents Retrophin. Do your own math.]
In any event, here's a bit -- from Mr. Greebel's (there is much salacious detail in the filing I am not repeating here -- read it yourselves):
. . . .In light of the mutually antagonistic defenses of Mr. Greebel and Mr. Shkreli, there will be no realistic way for a jury to find both defendants not guilty. In order to believe Mr. Greebel’s core defense, the jury will have to disbelieve Mr. Shkreli’s core defense; and, in order to believe Mr. Shkreli’s core defense, the jury will have to disbelieve Mr. Greebel’s core defense. The opposing defenses of Mr. Greebel and Mr. Shkreli go far beyond mere “finger pointing.” Mr. Greebel’s defenses require him to offer evidence at trial of Mr. Shkreli’s lies, material omissions, and deception. In a joint trial, that will turn Mr. Greebel’s counsel into another prosecutor of Mr. Shkreli. . . .
Mr. Greebel will be offering into evidence certain post-arrest statements made by Mr. Shkreli that exculpate Mr. Greebel, but inculpate Mr. Shkreli. And the government and Mr. Shkreli will likely attempt to keep them out of evidence altogether. Moreover, Mr. Greebel will likely be moving to preclude the admission of certain testimonial statements of Mr. Shkreli to law enforcement and the SEC that would not be admissible as evidence in a separate trial against Mr. Greebel. . . .
As demonstrated below, Mr. Shkreli’s post-arrest conduct has been nothing short of bizarre and, in the absence of a severance, will present a serious risk of depriving Mr. Greebel of a fair trial. According to his own stated intentions, as corroborated by his well-publicized post-arrest actions, Mr. Shkreli is purposely creating a circus-like atmosphere pursuant to an improper and prejudicial plan to disrupt the trial and achieve jury nullification along the lines of, in Mr. Shkreli’s own words, “OJ Simpson [and] Casey Anthony.” As the trial approaches and gets underway, and both the government and Mr. Greebel attack Mr. Shkreli’s story, it is a near certainty that Mr. Shkreli will take actions and make statements to destroy the integrity of the court proceedings to detract from the applicable evidence and the law. . . .
Mr. Greebel’s core defense will be based, in substantial part, on the following arguments that are antithetical to Mr. Shkreli’s defense: (1) Mr. Shkreli lied to Mr. Greebel and other attorneys at Katten Muchin; (2) Mr. Shkreli failed to disclose material information to Mr. Greebel and other attorneys at Katten Muchin; (3) Mr. Shkreli misrepresented on multiple occasions to third-parties that Mr. Greebel had offered or provided certain advice when in fact Mr. Greebel provided the opposite advice; (4) Mr. Shkreli misrepresented to others that he had obtained certain legal advice from Mr. Greebel when, in fact, Mr. Shkreli had not conferred with Mr. Greebel at all; (5) Mr. Shkreli deceived Mr. Greebel and other attorneys at Katten Muchin and misused them as pawns in fraudulent schemes unbeknownst to them; and (6) Mr. Shkreli has a long-term, pattern and practice of blaming others, including Mr. Greebel, for his own misconduct. . . ."
Charming. I do not know -- and cannot discern -- whether Mr. Greebel acted in a culpable manner here; I will await a jury decision on that score -- but I will now say that Mr. Greebel's legal team is almost certainly talking about a plea deal, from time to time -- with the AUSAs. That would be a death-knell to Mr. Shkreli's chances of avoiding prison time, in my experienced opinion.
Here is Martin's motion to sever -- some 23 pages.
Enjoy. Do read both -- for a full picture. Personally, I think it says as much about the counsel, as it does about the one counseled. I think snap reactions often belie deeper wounds. . . . Onward. Mr. Shkreli will go to trial (alone) in late June, and he will see time in a federal prison -- mark my words.