In Brooklyn earlier today, as we said he would, Reed Brodsky (on behalf of Mr. Greebel) forcefully eviscerated Mr. Shkreli's central theory of exculpation. That being the innocent client defense. In addition, as we predicted, Mr. Greebel's lawyer indicated that Greebel would alert the AUSAs to crimes not yet charged, if Shkreli were to take the stand in his own defense, in a joint trial. That argument/theory runs along the lines that Mr. Greebel would be duty bound to refute any Shkreli lie, since he still is an officer of the court (i.e., still holds a law license), and couldn't (under applicable ethics rules) help Mr. Shkreli attempt perjury, at any joint trial.
All of which, as ALSO we indicated, means they will almost certainly see separate trials.
Officially, the able Judge Masumoto took all the motions under advisement, and she will rule later.
But if this CNBC report is accurate -- there will be separate trials:
. . . .Brodsky also vowed Friday to use Greebel's knowledge of Shkreli's purported criminal conduct on cross-examination if Shkreli dares to take the witness stand in his own defense.
"We will be duty-bound to destroy Mr. Shkreli's credibility," Brodsky said.
"We are going to get up and we are going to say that Mr. Shkreli is guilty," Brodsky said. "He is a liar and a deceiver."
Prosecutors accuse Shkreli, with Greebel's assistance, of looting a pharmaceuticals firm he had founded, Retrophin, out of millions of dollars to pay off investors he was accused of defrauding at hedge funds he had operated. Both men have pleaded not guilty to the charges. . . .
Brodsky said that not only is Shkreli guilty of the crimes charged in the case, but also that he had engaged in "illegal" trading that federal prosecutors are unaware of, and that he had lied to the Securities and Exchange Commission during an interview in 2012, as well as other misconduct.
Brodsky said the crimes are evident to Greebel from documents that the government has obtained as evidence in the case but that prosecutors don't realize their full significance because they don't have Greebel's knowledge of circumstances related to the paperwork. . . ."
That's last bit essentially amounts to an open court offer -- of a Greebel plea, in exchange for turning states' evidence type deal, from Mr. Greebel's lawyers -- to the AUSAs -- also as we predicted.
In sum, all that crowing by Shkreli, and captured by PathoPhilia, right here -- about his great 174 page motion -- just went "poof".
I am exhausted (long, long train-wreck of week!), and FYI, all -- the otther sites may be offline, for a bit.
Goodnight, one and all of good will.