The solidly-written New York Law Journal reports overnight that the able AUSAs may well prevail with USDC Judge Matsumoto, in Brooklyn's federal courtroom -- convincing her that Mr. Shkreli has thus far offered no evidence that he had any legal advice as to six of the eight felony counts. [Backgrounder, here.]
Thus they argue -- he should not be allowed to "blame a lawyer". . .he admits he didn't consult:
. . . .[P]rosecutors say Shkreli shouldn't be allowed to argue a reliance of counsel defense in six of the eight counts. . . .
Shkreli has offered no evidence that he consulted an attorney about how to lawfully recruit investors to his funds or lawfully provide information to investors about the funds' performance, prosecutors said in a May 31 motion in limine signed by Acting U.S. Attorney Bridget Rohde and assistant U.S. attorneys Jacquelyn Kasulis, Alixandra Smith and G. Karthik Srinivasan.
Shkreli also doesn't state that he relied on legal advice from Katten attorneys at the time that he was making omissions and misrepresentations to the investors, prosecutors said.
The government noted that Shkreli admits that he had "virtually no professional support" from lawyers and accountants for the hedge funds. . . .
As you may surmise, I am generally going to rely on MSM reporting -- for more salacious details on the last pre-trial motions related to the case (rather than the raw PACER feed), so that I will not have in any way tainted any jury.
If it is already in the papers, it cannot be our fault -- if all we do is repeat it.
Now you know -- but I will only repeat responsibly sourced stories, even then.
Bring on the 26th!
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment