Thread by @innercitypress

OK - it's US v. Avenatti, Stormy Daniels trial Day 6, St. Martin's exec still on direct examination, Inner City Press covered the weekend's motion maelstrom innercitypress.com/sdnytrial12dav… and Sistine Stormy song; now will live tweet, thread below

https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1487467879683526662

Assistant US Attorney: Are you "EB"?
EB: I am.
AUSA: What did you mean in this email about not responding?
EB: We were not responding to Denver Nicks, Ms. Daniels' publicist.

AUSA: At any point did Mr. Avenatti make any legal threat about the payments to Ms. Daniels?
Avenatti: Objection! Asked and answered.
Judge Furman: Overruled.
EB: No, he never made any legal threat.

Elizabeth Beier: I called Ms. Daniels and she told me she was referring to the third payment, which we had already made.
AUSA: What is this document?
Beier: A check request for the last or fourth payment for Full Disclosure.

Cross examination:
Avenatti: Did I ever ask St. Martin's to send me any money?
Beier: No.
Avenatti: You would not be aware of any communications I had with Mr. Janklow about legal action against St. Martin's?
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Sustained.

Avenatti: The thought of not paying the fourth payment was based on the terrible sales of the book, correct?
Beier: We believed there was not enough publicity. Some 40,000 copies were sold.

Avenatti: How many did you expect to sell?
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Overruled.
Beier: Four times that. 150,000.

Avenatti: How many books would have had to be sold for Ms. Daniels to get any royalties?
Beier: Back of the envelope? 100,000.
Avenatti: She'd get $4 per book, correct?
Beier: That's each hardcover.

Avenatti: Is it fair to say St. Martin's lost a ton of money on this book?
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Furman: Overruled.
Beier: We lost money.
Avenatti: Hundreds of thousands of dollars, right?
Beier: I expect that is correct.

Avenatti: Who is John Karle?
Beier: He works in publicity for St. Martin's.
Avenatti: Do you recall Denver Nicks contacted St. Martin's and said Stormy would not do any more publicity after the Don Lemon --
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Furman: Sustained.

Avenatti: Did you tell me and Mr. Janklow, "Great partners"?
Beier: I don't remember that.
Avenatti: On July 24, 2018, isn't it true that you thanked me and Mr. Janklow for our time and attention on the book?
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Sustained.

Avenatti: Who wrote the forward to the book?
Beier: You did.
Avenatti: Who took the time to record the audio of the forward?
Beier: You did.
Judge Furman: Mr. Avenatti, how much more do you have of this?
Avenatti: Thirty to forty-five minutes.

Avenatti: Ms. Beier, do you remember in September 2018 there was a leak of the book?
Beier: Yes.
Avenatti: Do you remember there was a book signing scheduled for Ms. Daniels at the Museum of Sex here in NYC?
Beier: Yes.

Re-direct:
AUSA: Are poor book sales a basis for withholding payment?
Beier: No.
AUSA: Did St. Martin's expect the third payment to go to the defendant?
Beier: No.
AUSA: No further questions.

Next US witness: SDNY staffer Medrano.
AUSA: What is your focus as an investigative analysis at the SDNY?
Medrano: White collar crimes.
Judge Furman: It's 11 am, usually I'd give a break here but we are within 15 minutes of a possible longer break so let's push forward.

Avenatti launching cross examination of SDNY staffer Medrano
Avenatti: Who decided that this timeline would end on Feb 19, 2019 at 2:09 pm?
Medrano: The prosecution team.

Avenatti: Do you read books?
Medrano: Yes.
Avenatti: Do you just read sections out of the middle?
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Furman: Sustained.

And now Judge Furman tells the jury, the US has rested its case. The defendant has no duty to put on a case. I need to discuss this with the parties. I'm checking with the cafeteria to see if you lunch can be brought early.

Jury leaves.
Judge Furman: Is there a motion under Rule 29?
Avenatti: There will be. But first, I intend to move to exclude the chart Mr. Medrano spoke about but didn't prepare.
Judge Furman: I don't see any basis for that.

Avenatti: The government has given the jury to false impression that Ms. Daniels informed me she had retained Mr. Brewster before I terminated her as a client. That is false. And we've told the government. It is incumbent on them to correct the misimpression.

Judge Furman: It's called the adversary process. You can cross examine, you can put on a case. I don't understand what your application is.
Avenatti: I move under Rule 29 because the US has not satisfied the elements.

Judge Furman: There is ample evidence in the record on which the jury could find you acted contrary to your duties. You can argue what you want to the jury. Next argument.
Avenatti: The US is relying on Ms. Daniels saying I wouldn't take money from the book deal

Avenatti: I was entitled to a reasonable fee. I cannot be convicted for stealing money I was entitled to.
Judge Furman: Your Rule 29 motions are denied. I don't understand why you are not prepared to tell me what exhibits you intend to ask to introduce.

Avenatti: We had 5 witnesses ready, but your Honor issued an order for them not to come.
Judge Furman: That's not true. I told only one not to travel from California, due to the motion to quash.

Judge Furman: Mr. Avenatti you have some obligation to be prepare to put on your case.
Avenatti: Mr Loupe has flown back to New Orleans after your ruling --
Judge Furman: Mr. Avenatti, I did not MAKE any rulings.

Judge Furman: We'll take a break of 15 minutes. Then I expect you to be ready to speak to me about exhibits then who will testify tomorrow, or who will testify at all. Adjourned.
Story coming on InnerCityPress.com and patreon.com/MatthewRussell…

OK they're back. Thread continues below. Here's story during break: story: innercitypress.com/sdnytrial13ave… @SubstackInc with song link matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/in-stormy-da…
Judge Furman: Let's talk about exhibits

AUSA: I don't understand what "run like a banshee" means, I don't see why it should come in.
[It's about Macias' text to Avenatti that came up during his testimony]
Avenatti: I don't think there's any debate this text came from Mr. Macias

[While Judge Furman hears Avenatti's arguments on exhibits, he has now unsealed the below attachment to Avenatti's letter motion of Janklow, now that the US has closed its case]

Judge Furman calls lunch break, says he'll bring jury back for a bit after that and then send them home for the day while they argue what (if anything?) the defense case will look like. [After UN noon briefing Inner City Press is banned from] thread will continue

They're back. Judge Furman tells the jury the defense is under no obligation to present a defense, but...
Avenatti: The defense introduces a stipulation on the admission into evidence, communications between Michael Avenatti and Sean Macias.
Judge Furman: Admitted

Judge Furman: Jurors, we're going to get you go for the day. It's like a school day with early dismissal. We'll pick up tomorrow.
[Jurors leave]
Judge Furman: Let's take up the proposed witnesses. If I allow them, they'll be here tomorrow or they'll not testify.

Judge Furman: On Mr. Loupe, Mr. Avenatti proffers he's witnessed Ms. Daniels' loss of memory and capacity.
AUSA: Mr. Loupe is not a doctor. And we have no idea where these allegation are coming from.
Avenatti: They're from interviews.

Judge Furman: Does he say she doesn't remember what happened in a trance? Because she didn't appear to be in a trance on the witness stand. So it could be a side show.
Avenatti: It's not just in a trance.
Judge Furman: If Mr. Loupe is here tomorrow he may testify

Judge Furman: I do believe the issue of any memory lost is relevant. It's not my job to exclude a witness because they're testimony may be lacking in credibility. That is what cross examination is for.

Avenatti: I wasn't running Skadden Arps - it was a small firm, so the testimony of Carlos Colorado would be relevant - unless the word "reasonable" is read out of the contract.
Judge Furman: The contact says $100. This other is an unenforceable agreement to agree

Judge Furman: I am going to quash the subpoena to Mr. Barrale, it's a side show.
Avenatti: If Mr. Karbley doesn't testify, could we call Mr. Barrale as a witness?
Judge Furman: No. My ruling stands. Let's talk about Mr. Janklow.

Avenatti: I want to re-call Mr. Janklow because the government claims there was no real discussion of going after St. Martin's about payments. But there was. And Mr. Janklow in November 2018 wrote that Ms. Daniels sabotaged the book.

Judge Furman: Mr. Avenatti, you have a tendency to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. This seems probably irrelevant altogether. It's a distraction.
Avenatti: We haven't been able to establish we were going to threaten litigation.

Judge Furman: While up here on the bench, I've received a motion to quash from Mr. Marshack. I'll try to have copies printed out for the parties and will docket it in due course.
[For now, the most recent motion to quash if from Barrale]

Judge Furman: What about Mr. [Denver] Nicks?
AUSA: He might have relevant information, but we don't know Mr. Avenatti's intentions so we are not prepared to move at this time.
Judge Furman: Let's see. If he appears tomorrow we can take it up.

Avenatti: For me to re-call Mr. Janklow, there would be no prejudice to the government.
Judge Furman: Mr. Janklow has moved to quash your subpoena. So the government is not the only one asserting prejudice.

AUSA: If Mr. Avenatti were to raise it on appeal, let the record reflect that the defense cross of Mr. Janklow, at 2 1/2 hours was longer than the direct.
Avenatti: I was informed the direct was longer, if not, I was wrong.
Judge Furman: You are wrong.

Judge Furman: Mr. Avenatti, I said I'd be back on the bench at 3 and I am. So let's turn to quantum meruit. Having graduated from GW law school or wherever it was, if he thought he was entitled to take the fee, I suppose he could say that if he testifies.

Judge Furman: But what role might quantum meruit have in this case? Your submission simply tell me what the concept is, not how it might apply. Will you testify?
Avenatti: I haven't decided yet.
Judge Furman: If you do testify, it shouldn't be about case law.

Avenatti: The case the court had set it, a defendant could never get a good faith instruction until they testify.
Judge Furman: You've made your record. The fact that you were up to date with your CLE requirements clearly did not assure following or knowing the law

Judge Furman: Let's turn to the Nike conviction. Mr. Avenatti, do you wish to be heard?
Avenatti: For the court's information, I currently do not intend to testify.
Judge Furman: We should still address because if you do, it could be tomorrow.

Avenatti: If I were cross examined about the California allegations, I'd need access to that data, and witnesses from California. It should be excluded under 403 grounds.

Avenatti: If a subpoena is not quashed but the witness does not come, I should not be prejudiced --
Judge Furman: At least one of your witnesses could not enter the courthouse. It will be depend on the efforts you make.

Avenatti: Once they are served with a subpoena, I don't have to do anything any more. And Mr. Dalack wants to make a record on something.
Dalack: I tried to get partial compliance with a subpoena until January 16, no communications since.

Judge Furman: It seems to me that if Mr. Avenatti does not testify, the defense will rest tomorrow. We'd do the charging conference then closings on Wednesday.

Judge Furman: So I will see you tomorrow morning.
Adjourned. Stories later on InnerCityPress.com and patreon.com/MatthewRussell… - but first, down to Worth Street to try to get answers from Avenatti, #FoleySquareFollies