Thread by @meghanncuniff

“Mr. Avenatti, don’t condescend me.”
One of a few fiery quotes from Judge Furman today. Court just got out with Avenatti still crossing Sean Macias, the California lawyer who introduced him to Stormy Daniels. Furman then considered the motion to quash Janklow’s subpoena.

Furman also considered scope of Avenatti’s cross of Stormy, and Avenatti told the judge doesn’t want Stormy not answering his questions etc. “I don’t have any intention of being combative with Ms. Daniels,” Avenatti said, saying he’s not predicting a problem

It's no secret Avenatti is a great storyteller, and he sure likes to set the scene for the jury. During his cross of his ex-paralegal Judy Regnier, he described for this Manhattan jury today the @MontageLaguna resort in Orange County where the law firm had its holiday party.

“The Montage is a five-star resort in Laguna Beach…Right on the beach, overlooking the ocean.”
But on redirect, AUSA asked Regnier, “Was there a party at the Montage in December 2018?”
No, there wasn’t. “Do you know why?” Avenatti objected saying it calls for speculation.

and Judge Furman seemed slightly amused, telling Avenatti the question truly was a yes or no question and overruling the objection.
“Yes,” Regnier answered. Why no party in 2018? “The firm was not in a position to have a party. They didn’t have the funds.”

It's not hard to tell what the big disagreement between Avenatti and his public defenders was about scope of paralegal's cross. It had to have been all this award-winning, Montage-partying law firm stuff. They weren't planning to discuss the law firm's $450M verdict.

Avenatti told Judge Furman today he didn't want prosecutors trying to tell the jury the verdict ended up getting gutted because it happened after the alleged crimes, which is the same argument he used in California.

Judge Furman agreed, but Furman also said the general nature of verdicts being appealable and not necessarily generating actual money was totally fair game. That's when prosecutors revealed that the public defenders had said they wouldn't be mentioning the $450M verdict at all.

It like a flashback to last summer with some of Avenatti's questions. His first to SDNY prosecutors' financial analyst David Padilla on cross was: "Have you heard the phrase 'a trail is a fight for credibility?'" Furman sustained the objection, but does that even matter?

Furman has made it clear he thinks some of Avenatti's questions are ridiculous, including making comments in front of the jury. He'll also say "sustained" before prosecutors even say "objection" particularly regarding questions about what investigators and prosecutors didn't do.

That goes back to a pretrial ruling relating to how much Avenatti can challenge the integrity of the investigation, which I'll find later tonight. It's a majorly crucial difference between this trial and the California trial. Furman is not allowing those questions at all.

For example, Avenatti was grilling Padilla about his charts and calculations and asked why he highlighted what he highlighted. "The prosecution team picked the ones to highlight," Padilla answered. "Do you know why they picked these?" Avenatti asked. Objection sustained.

This cross from Padilla produced another sharp comment from Furman in front of the jury. AUSA Andrew Rohrbach said, "Very briefly, your honor," when he got up for re-direct, and Furman said, "I would expect so" in a tone of voice I wish you could hear.

The highlight witness today was of course CA lawyer Macias, the lawyer who introduced Avenatti to Stormy. The image of Macias and Avenatti partying it up at the Tom Girardi bash for the annual plaintiff's bar conference in Las Vegas in 2018 is pretty perfect.

But the point of the testimony wasn't about the partying, it was about Avenatti being desperate for money and so very upset that Macias struggled to even put it into words today. This is months after Macias said he told Stormy, "Hey, I've got a great lawyer for you."

As a California resident in NYC, it's fun to hear local places mentioned, and the always-hopping Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown LA got a shoutout today from Sean Macias. That's where he met Avenatti.

It's the all-civil case courthouse, and Macias said he spotted Avenatti and "I said, 'what's up, soda pop?'" And Avenatti immediately responded, "Nothing much, pony boy."
Macias testified: "I said, 'Did we just become best friends?'"

Macias said Avenatti met Stormy at the Waldorf Astoria in Beverly Hills. But the bulk of his direct was all about the Vegas party, and how Avenatti was agitated and told Macias he needed money to make payroll. Macias said he was shocked. "He was the top lawyer on all of TV."

Macias testified Avenatti asked him for money, and when asked his response, Macias answered, "I used the f-word with a no at the end." Macias said Avenatti said the Irvine Company in Orange County "were Republicans, and they were trying to throw him out."

There was Q&A identifying the Irvine Company as OC property owners and Avenatti's landlord near the upscale shopping mall Fashion Island, which Macias described as "a very nice part of Orange County." (Opinions may differ on that, depending on your definition of nice.)

I covered Avenatti's eviction for @LADailyJournal, and the lawyer never said anything about it being a Democrat v. Republican thing. It was because Avenatti hadn't paid the $50k monthly rent for five months. From my notes in 2018.

Eviction hearing was same day ex-firm lawyer Jason Frank got a $4.85M personal judgment against Avenatti at the ol' Stanley Mosk Courthouse for breach of contract, related to an unpaid debt. “There’s no two ways about it: Mr. Avenatti is beleaguered,” Frank's lawyer said then.

Anyway, Macias testified about trying to get a loan from one guy for Avenatti, and Avenatti being "really upset. Like, really upset."
"I couldn't even understand him. It's almost like he was teared up crying." But he really struggled to answer questions about what Avenatti said.

When first loan attempt didn't work, Macias said Avenatti asked him to ask Mark Geragos for one. Macias, who's a real character, described his response: "I did not want to call Geragos on a beautiful September morning and ask him for money. I said, 'You're killing me.'"

Macias said he told Geragos, "Don't yell at me" but Avenatti needs a bridge loan. And "shockingly," Geragos was cool with it. "He referred to him as El Presidente, He's like why not," Macias testified.

Macias told Avenatti, "I said, 'I did it again. I'm just a lifesaver for you, kid. Geragos is a go."
(Macias also testified today that Avenatti gave him a watch to thank him for introducing him to Stormy.)

Prosecutors said outside jury that Avenatti used this loan money to pay back 2nd book payment he'd stolen from Stormy. Then later he stole a third one that's never been repaid, though Avenatti's entire defense is that he was entitled to it because of case costs.

Avenatti's first questions on cross to Macias shows he understands the value of putting something before the jury in a question, no matter how the witness answers. "Have you consumed any alcohol or drugs in the last 24 hours?"
"A glass of champagne," Macias answered.

Then Avenatti went for the jugular question.
"Anything else - any cocaine or marijuana?" he asked.
"No," Macias said.

Avenatti's crux is Macias wasn't finding him $$ because Avenatti had problems, it was because Macias wanted Avenatti run for president.
Avenatti: "You were incredibly enthusiastic about me running for higher office?"
Macias: "Absolutely! I told you I wanted to be an ambassador."

Macias, who btw did I mention is a character, continued on the witness stand today, "You wanted me to be chief of staff. I said, 'Make me ambassador of France. That'd be awesome!'"

And that led to something that highlights another difference between this trial and California. In California, Avenatti used a document to refresh a witness' recollection *all the time*. And it took a ton of time. It's not happening much here, but Avenatti tried it with Macias.

He asked Macias if he remembered telling Avenatti he was trying to find him money "so I can run like a banshee" as in run for president. Macias didn't remember, so Avenatti went to show him a message, but Furman shut him down.

Avenatti told the judge after he rejected him that he was trying to refresh Macias' recollection, and Furman replied, "I understand what you were going to do, but as your next question," in an unamused and 'I'm not an idiot' tone.

Avenatti scored a win in arguments over the scope of his Stormy cross by pointing to a word in his contract with her 'reasonable' that describes compensation. He said that opens the door for him to question her about the quality of his work, and Furman was a bit swayed.

Furman said repeatedly the case isn't about whether Aveantti is a good lawyer, it's about whether he defrauded Stormy. But Avenatti was a practicing California lawyer, so he's able to drop California cases about lawyering on these New Yorkers. Stuff about 'quantum meruit'

But Furman is still not giving Avenatti much room - a lot will be decided as it comes up in cross. He did say something that caught my attention, that if Avenatti genuinely "in good faith" believed he was entitled to her money, that may not be enough to convict him.

The key there is 'good faith.' Prosecutors in California use the term 'bad faith' so much they must have it on stored copy and paste. There is a general belief that Avenatti is not lawyering here in good faith. But for Avenatti, it's his life on the line.

Furman took a harsh tone with Avenatti at the end of the day after Avenatti talked about not wanting to be combative with Stormy, with the judge saying he's to act professionally and in good faith or he'll be told to sit down.

So stay tuned for tomorrow. There's only one witness between Macias and Stormy, an investigative analyst whose direct is estimated to be 30 minutes. Prosecutors estimated Stormy's direct at three hours. 🚀

Ok now I wish I’d listened to today’s bankruptcy hearing, because Judge Clarkson is not letting the trustee comply with subpoenas from SDNY prosecutors and Avenatti defense, including for the Tabs data. No written explanation why.

Here’s @SkaddenArps’ motion to quash Avenatti’s subpoena to Luke Janklow, and it includes a transcript of Avenatti’s in-court proffer to Furman. bit.ly/3IE4gyX

Furman granted motion to quash and said he won’t stand in way of Janklow’s family vacation, but agreed to Stormy’s testimony could open door (maybe) for more testimony and if so Avenatti said he’s fine with Janklow testifying remotely. But we’ll see - Furman said he’s skeptical.

Re: Avenatti’s quantum meruit argument against limits on his cross of Stormy and his ability to recall Janklow, he filed this letter tonight that cites case law saying its purpose is “the law’s disgust for unjust enrichment” and says it supports his argument.