Thread by @meghanncuniff

It’s the morning of closing arguments in Michael Avenatti’s Stormy Daniels trial here at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan. This will be the first time Avenatti’s given a closing argument, after his mistrial in California last summer. Check back here for updates. ⚖️🧵⚖️

Avenatti is under tight restrictions in his closing, with U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman threatening to make him refer to himself in the third person if he injects testimony into his closing that would only be appropriate if he’d taken the stand in his defense, which he didn’t.

One thing - that “It depends on how you define a bill” answer Avenatti gave when Furman asked if he’d ever billed Stormy. I think he was referring to that list of case costs he sent her after they parted ways in February 2019 after she realized he’s taken her book deal money.

They’re to get started at 9 am in courtroom 26B (there are three overflow rooms), with AUSA Robert Sobelman estimating his closing at 90 minutes. Avenatti pegged his at two hours.

This’ll be the first time Avenatti has delivered a closing argument as a pro se, after his California mistrial last summer. Judge Furman has told the jury he’d like them to stay until 5 pm on deliberation days, so it’s possible we could have a verdict today.

Here’s my full thread yesterday, with tweets from the afternoon charge conference in which Judge Furman laid out the groundwork for Avenatti’s closing. There are links to jury instructions and more. bit.ly/3J36dW1

Here are the revised jury instructions Judge Furman posted last night. bit.ly/3sbrN3v

“Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. When my father was a teenager, he sold hotdogs at a ballpark.”
Judge Furman: “Sustained. Mr. Avenatti, please stick to this case.”
And so began Michael Avenatti’s closing argument in the Stormy Daniels case.

About 90 minutes later, Avenatti started to conclude. To conclude, I will leave you with this. “I’m Italian. I like Italian food.”
Judge Furman: “Sustained. Mr. Avenatti, please stick to the evidence in this case.”

Avenatti readjusted, telling jurors “the case the government is attempting to sell you has a giant cockroach in the middle of the plate.”
And he didn’t mean him. He was referring to the problems he’s described for jurors in prosecutors’ case.

It’s a classic line that I’ve heard in other trials. If you were served a dish with a cockroach in it, you wouldn’t just eat around the cockroach. You’d send the entire plate back. That’s what Avenatti told the jury is warranted here, and it means not guilty.

Break for another 15 minutes, then AUSA Matthew Podolsky will give rebuttal. One big issue Furman raised outside jury: Avenatti mentioning the Tabs data in his closing, given Furman’s prior rulings on its irrelevancy.
“I’m a little stunned Mr. Avenatti went there,” Furman said.

Judge said he’s open to a curative instruction and told prosecutors “why don’t you think about the Tabs issue” over the break. Furman already issued several curative instructions during Avenatti’s closings about his what he says isn’t evidence.

Judge Furman also sustained objections when Avenatti started questioning the integrity of the investigation and why certain messages weren’t considered etc, with AUSA Sobelman twice telling Furman, “the government is not on trial.”

That is such a tremendous difference between this case and California case, and it’s fascinating to watch it play out in real time in this trial. Avenatti’s ability to question federal agents about their work and why they looked for only certain stuff was key to the mistrial.

The jury started deliberating about 15 minutes ago after the six alternates were cut loose. (They were allowed to leave the courthouse, unlike some trials I’ve covered in California where they have to be at the courthouse while jury deliberates.)

A lot to tweet, but I’m unclear on protocol for verdict notification around here so need to stay close to the courtroom. Judge Furman told each side to keep someone in the courtroom until 5, so there might not even be a notification protocol. It’s just up to you not to miss it.

Avenatti moved for a mistrial after the jury left, based on comments in rebuttal about his lack of evidence and Furman halting his analogies while allowing similar stories from prosecutors. Furman called the move “frivolous” and did not declare a mistrial.

One important change in Judge Furman’s coutroom: Use of cellphones is no longer “STRICKLY” prohibited, it’s “STRICTLY” prohibited. Fortunately a source was able to send me this photo from last week to preserve the ol’ misspelled sign o’ yore.

Regarding Avenatti’s mistrial request and complaint about prosecutors being allowed to use analogies, when explaining why he was wrong, Furman began: “Putting aside the fact that no one cares you like Italian food and no one cares your father sold hot dogs…” 🌭 #WelcometoNewYork

AUSA Matt Podolsky used analogies about stealing from a cash register and about getting caught cheating on a spouse, but Judge Furman said he used them to make an argument. Furman said Podolsky “did come a tad close to the line” when he spoke of Avenatti’s lack of evidence…

But the judge gave a curative instruction right after Podolsky said that, and Judge Furman said any impropriety was addressed by reminding jury the burden of proof is on prosecutors.

So the jury was told to stay until 5 today (unless they somehow reach a verdict sooner.) It’s six men and six women, by my count. Furman told them they don’t have to come back to the courtroom if 5 hits and they don’t have a verdict, they can just leave the courthouse.

Which is different from other trials I’ve seen where the judge gets the jury back in and reads them the admonishment about not discussing the case with others are doing outside research before cutting them loose.

Avenatti said in his closing the messages between him and Stormy “show that I certainly could have communicated better with Ms. Daniels. I accept responsibility for that,” Avenatti told the jury.
Furman sustained an objection for the “I accept responsibility” remark.

Avenatti said Stormy’s cases “were like drinking out of a fire hose for me and the other attorneys.” They were drowning in work.
AUSA Robert Sobelman objected, saying Avenatti was testifying. Furman sustained and reminded jury Avenatti’s argument is not testimony.

The jury in Avenatti’s Stormy Daniels trial just went home for the day, after about two hours and 10 minutes of deliberation. Back tomorrow at 9 a.m.

.@TMcParlandALM from the press room:

https://twitter.com/recordertweets/status/1488969342389784580

So going back to this morning, Avenatti began by renewing his Rule 29 motion for acquittal "now that I have rested my case."
"Fair enough. I'm renewing my ruling. It's denied," Judge Furman said.
Jury got in at 9:10 am and Furman reminded them Avenatti's closing isn't testimony.

"Obviously you know that Michael Avenatti was involved in many of the events relevant to" this case. "I imagine he'll be referring to himself, but he says is not evidence," Judge Furman said.

AUSA Robert Sobelman's closing began, "The defendant was a lawyer who stole from his own client. She thought he was her advocate. But he betrayed her." His scheme didn't work because "his lies caught up with him."
"At this trial, the truth came out," Sobelman said.

Sobelman went through 10 reasons "you know the defendant is guilty" in a Power Point that included a lot of messages from evidence. First up: "the defendant's lies to Stormy Daniels." Stormy testified that Avenatti told her he wouldn't take any of her money because she earned it.

Sobelman said Avenatti's messages with Stormy are "devastating evidence of the defendant's guilt."
"He lied to Ms. Daniels for months," Sobelman said.
He lied "over and over and over again." He used a fake letter with Daniels' signature "to trick Mr. Janklow."

Sobelman went through how Avenatti redirected book money after Stormy got 1st payment, getting Janklow to send it to his account, then spending it. He also got himself a "secret referral fee" from Janklow. "The defendant kept Ms. Daniels in the dark about that too," Sobelman said

Avenatti used the Mark Geragos loan to cover Stormy's 2nd payment after she kept asking questions, Sobelman said, highlighting an Oct. 2 2018 message in which Stormy told Avenatti regarding 3rd payment, "make sure they don't take five weeks like last time. They were way late."

Sobelman walked jurors through what he described as new versions of cover up lies for the missing money such as the need for better publicity for the book and the "let me check" lie.
"What was he going to check? The empty bank account that he spent her money from?"

Sobelman said the balance in the account "was literally zero dollars." "He'd already spent all of Ms. Daniels' money."
"He knew exactly what he did, and he was trying to cover it up," Sobelman said.
After he stole 3rd payment, Avenatti moved to the "we're resolving it lie."

"He stole her money and lied about it even when he knew she couldn't afford to buy a home without that money," Sobelman said of Avenatti and Stormy.
That led to reason #2 - Avenatti's lies to Luke Janklow of @JanklowNesbit.

Sobelman showed jurors an email from Janklow to @StMartinsPress about getting Avenatti Stormy's third payment early. "He's not asking to be greedy - he has a reason," Janklow wrote.

That led to Sobelman referencing Avenatti's good faith defense.
"If defendant thought he was entitled to this money, why would he tell Mr. Janklow Ms Daniels needed it?" Sobelman said.

Reason #3: Avenatti kept Stormy and Luke Janklow separate, Sobelman said. After stealing her 3rd payment, "this was a dangerous moment for the defendant." If Stormy contacted Janklow, she'd find out 3rd payment had already been spent. But eventually Janklow pressed Avenatti.

Sobelman showed jurors a message.
"Dude she just called me again," Janklow wrote Avenatti on Feb. 16, 2019, saying he was no longer comfortable without talking to her. "As impulsive and impetuous as she is, she's not as bad as some of my other clients."

Reason #4 Avenatti's lies to Sean Macias to secure loan. Macias said Avenatti told him he needed money for payroll and back office rent, but he never said anything about Stormy's book payment. Sobelman told jurors that constitutes a lie.
Reason #5 He concealed loan from Stormy.

Reason #6 Avenatti's "fake letter," as Sobelman calls it, to Janklow to redirect the payment.
Reason #7 Avenatti broke @StateBarCA rules to steal money. Sobelman told jurors they'll hear in Furman's instructions that that alone doesn't constitute a crime...

..."but you may consider whether he broke the rules" when deciding whether Avenatti engaged in a scheme to defraud, Sobelman told jurors.
Sobelman went over some rules he said Avenatti violated, including that a lawyer has a duty to notify a client when money's received.

Sobelman also told jurors of a @StateBarCA rule that was definitely part of the California trial: A lawyer is to take a fee out of a client account right away, unless there's a dispute. Then they have to wait for the dispute to be resolved.

"If he had followed the rules, he would have gotten caught right away," Sobelman said.
Reason #8 Avenatti was desperate for money. Sobelman read excerpts from paralegal Judy Regnier's testimony, reminded jurors Avenatti spent $50k of Stormy's money on payroll, $10k on health care

"The defendant's law firm was broke. That's one o the reasons he stole Ms. Daniels' money."
Sobelman continued, "That explains why the defendant stole her money, but it doesn't excuse his crimes."
He reminded jury of the summary charts tracking how Avenatti spent Stormy's money.

That's when Geoff Johnson got another shoutout. Avenatti sent Stormy's money to his driver, his now-ex-girlfriend and his first ex-wife, as well as Geoff Johnson, a client victim in the California case. Sobelman said Johnson "had absolutely nothing to do with Ms. Daniels."

Reason 9 - when Avenatti got caught, he played dumb. Sobelman went over Stormy's texts to Avenatti after she got the accounting from Janklow that showed when the payments had been made. "She couldn't believe that her trusted lawyer could have lied to her every day for months."

But Stormy now saw through Avenatti's lies. "She told you - this was her mic drop moment," Sobelman said, referring to Stormy's testimony. "She had caught the defendant red-handed" and wanted to make sure she knew.

Confronted by Stormy with the payment details from Janklow, Avenatti texted her, "let me find out what's going on."
"What was there to find out? Nothing. He had stolen and spent the money months ago," Sobelman told the jury.

Sobelman transitioned to elements of wire fraud and ID theft charges. "Now that we have gone through the devastating evidence of the defendant's guilt..."
He also went over Avenatti's defenses, saying "none of that provides an excuse for his fraud, his deceit, his theft."

"You cannot just decide you deserve something and take it from them. That is stealing," Sobelman told the jury. "You don't need to spent one second talking about whether Ms. Daniels fulfilled her publicity requirement."

Sobelman said Avenatti's trying to distract by saying everyone is lying or crazy. "Why is he doing that? Because the truth shows he's guilty."
Sobelman said of Stormy, "You saw her testify confidently and directly."

He told jury to remember case is "about a betrayal of trust." Stormy went to Avenatti for help.
"He was supposed to be her advocate, but defendant betrayed her and lied to her over and over and over again."
"The defendant is guilty," Sobelman's final words in his closing.

Avenatti then asked for a curative instruction over the state bar rule talk and Furman denied. He then began his closing this way.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1488923296137678852

Avenatti said every trial is a fight for credibility, then went over messages he said refute prosecutors' argument that he kept Stormy away from Luke Janklow.
"Perhaps you can overlook one or two texts that the government just forgot. But there's more."

He shared messages that showed Stormy and Janklow were in direct contact.
"There's no question that Ms. Daniels was freely able to communicate with Mr. Janklow during this entire process," Avenatti said. Ask when you deliberate, "why would the government try to mislead us?"

"Let's talk about Ms. Daniels," Avenatti said. "Some of you may admire Ms. Daniels. I understand that. The evidence will show that I did, too, for a long time."
"I put it all on the line for Ms. Daniels because I believed in her and I wanted to help her."

"I admired her, perhaps more so than any other person in her life," Avenatti said of Stormy. But when someone walks into this court, "this hallowed ground," takes an oath and is less than honest with you, "that, ladies and gentlemen, is not admirable."

Avenatti went over how he took Stormy's case when no other lawyer would take it without a huge upfront fee, and he was "about to embark on a fight against the president of the United States."
"Attorneys like most professionals cost money," Avenatti said.

Avenatti had a PowerPoint slide titled Use Your Common Sense.
He told jurors to ask themselves why he'd tell Stormy he was giving up his rights to the book money under their client contract "only then to steal this money."
Another slide was titled It Makes No Sense.

"Let me be clear, Michael Avenatti never committed the crime of wire fraud," Avenatti told the jury. "Mr. Avenatti never committed the crime of aggravated identity theft."
No sufficient evidence to show a scheme to defraud. He pointed to the good faith defense.

"I don't have to prove I had a good faith belief, although I believe the evidence overwhelming shows that I did," Avenatti said. Prosecutors must prove he had fraudulent intent but "ladies and gentlemen, they have not done that."

People expect to be paid for work. "There should be nothing controversial about that basic concept," Avenatti said.
He showed jurors transcript excerpts from his cross-exam of Stormy. He said he wasn't working for free, and he was spending big money on her case work.

"I was not adopting Ms. Daniels," Avenatti told the jury. He said his contract entitled him to a reasonable percentage of a book contract, but prosecutors presented no evidence about what a reasonable percentage should be.

"For all of the blood, sweat and tears, the government proposes that me and my firm deserve zero," Avenatti said.

"There was an enormous amount of work done for Ms. Daniels, and the evidence shows the work wasn't done for free," Avenatti said
He named Carlos Colorado and Ahmed Ibrahim. "We got results for Ms. Daniels, and we [recast] the narrative against the most powerful man on the planet"

"The evidence shows that we took the fight to Donald Trump," Avenatti told the jury. Prosecutors say everyone else can be paid, but "Michael Avenatti could never actually believe he had a right to be paid."
"That is ludicrous, and it's not supported by the evidence," he said.

If Avenatti had a good-faith belief he was due the money, "it's game over for the government," he said.
He went over expenditures for Stormy like security.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this was my money. This was the firm's money. It wasn't Ms. Daniels' money."

"There's something wrong when she expects someone else to pay for it when they never agreed to pay for it," Avenatti said.
Avenatti then showed jury some of his exam with Regnier the paralegal, about Tabs/Quickbooks accounting. (That prompted a scolding from Judge Furman later.)

"Why didn't the government show you all of the time and accounting records that Ms. Regnier testified about?" Avenatti asked.
A long pause, then an objection from Sobelman.
"Sustained. Move on, please," Judge Furman said.

"The government is attempting to convince you that me and my firm were not entitled to be paid for the work that we do," Avenatti said. He then moved to a slide titled "Daniels Testimony That Destroys the Government's Case" then one titled The Big Lie.

The Big Lie is about Stormy saying she never told Avenatti she closed her book account, and Judge Furman clarifying with her on the stand that that's what she said, then Avenatti displaying a text in which she did tell him she'd closed the account.

"This is clear as day. Ms. Daniels lied on the stand," Avenatti said.
"And why is that a big deal?" Because this letter was sent two weeks later - the so-called "fake letter" to Janklow redirecting the payments to Avenatti.

Avenatti said he sent that letter because Stormy told him the account was closed. She was trying to hide money from her ex-husband. The jury can infer Avenatti sent the letter about new account info because Stormy told him the book account was closed, Avenatti told the jury.

Avenatti asked where the proof is that he told Stormy he'd never take a portion of the book money. "Where is that proof? It doesn't exist." (It's only come out through Stormy's testimony.)

Avenatti asked why investigators didn't look at all the messages between him and Stormy, which prompted a sustained objection and an instruction from Judge Furman: "I repeat, ladies and gentlemen, the government is not on trial in this case."

Furman repeated the instruction soon after when Avenatti displayed a. overhead that said "Where is Denver Nicks?" with a Where's Waldo scene. (Denver is an old friend of Stormy's who tried to help find her book money in 2018.)

Avenatti then acknowledged the messages "show that I certainly could have communicated better with Ms. Daniels. I accept responsibility for that."
Furman sustained an objection.
"Failing to effectively communicate is not a crime," Avenatti said.

Avenatti also pointed to a q&a with Stormy in his cross in which he asked her if she'd agree he was entitled, meaning to a portion of her book money, and Stormy replied, "You're very entitled, yes."
At the time, Stormy's answer felt flippant. She was making fun of Avenatti.

But unless I totally missed it, AUSA Matthew Podolsky never pointed that out in his rebuttal today. So Avenatti's inference to the jury that Stormy was conceding he was due her money is the last they heard about that comment.

Podolsky started by saying "the defendant's arguments in this case don't make sense." He said Avenatti talked about things that don't matter to confuse the jury. "In this case, the truth is very, very simple. That man took someone else's money. That's what this case is about."

If Avenatti thought he was due the money, "why didn't he just tell Ms. Daniels, 'I've got your money'?" Podolsky asked.
Podolsky said Avenatti told the jury he had Stormy's money for safekeeping, and she knew this, but then, why did he spent all of it?

"That's an incredible thing to say, because not only did she not know that, he didn't have her money. He'd spent it..It was gone," Podolsky said. He reminded jury of Avenatti "begging" Sean Macias for a loan when Stormy was pressing him about her missing 2nd payment.

Podolsky showed more texts of Stormy asking Avenatti about the book payments. "I'm sure he responds 'I'm entitled to it,'" Podolsky said. "Nope."
"Was it good faith when the defendant lied to Ms. Daniels for months almost daily?" More questions in that "was it good faith" form.

He compared Avenatti's "let me check" lines to Stormy as a cheating spouse saying "let me figure it out" when confronted with solid evidence of infidelity. Furman overruled Avenatti's objection.

Judge Furman later sustained objections and gave an instruction about the burden of proof after Podolsky kept asking "where' the evidence?"
Podolsky also said regarding Stormy, "Defendant heaped insults on her." About paranormal, being weird.

"Ask yourself, what does any of that have to do with anything?" Podolsky said. "She can believe whatever she wants and still" be the victim of fraud and still deserve not to be."
"Candidly, I don't even really understand what the theory is."

Podolsky said Stormy "was truthful. She told you what happened."
He said Avenatti has said he's entitled to the money, but the question is why didn't he ever tell Stormy that?
"The answer is because he's guilty," Podolsky said and sat down.

I tweeted earlier about Furman rejecting Avenatti's mistrial request and dismissing his complaints about Furman not allowing his analogies while allowing prosecutors'. Avenatti said Podolsky's rebuttal was "riddled with personal opinions about my arguments."

"I'm arguing that the personal remarks deprived me of a fair trial," Avenatti said. Furman denied his motion as frivolous and said Podolsky's use of first person was ill advised, but he praised the analogies and said prosecutors used theirs to argue while Avenatti was testifying.

When sending home the alternates, Judge Furman said something that really made me want to drop everything and immediately consume all of human knowledge regarding the Southern District of New York aka the Mother Court. He gave a shoutout to the late Judge Edward Weinfeld.

Furman called Weinfeld "a very famous judge" and said "many of us seek to emulate" him "in many respects." But Furman has one big departure: Weinfeld never thanked juries because he thought they were just doing their duty. Furman said he disagrees, and he thanked the jury today.

A cursory Google search shows Judge Furman is not the only judge who feels this way about the venerable Judge Weinfeld's refusal to say thanks. From a 2019 Forbes piece about Furman's SDNY colleague Judge Colleen McMahon. bit.ly/32SpVnK

@threadreaderapp Unroll, please. Thank you! 🚀