OK - US v. Avenatti, Day 10 - there has just been a jury note, that one juror is refusing to deliberate or look at evidence, other 11 jurors asking for help. Inner City Press will live tweet, thread below
https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1489618868456894469
Assistant US Attorney: We should ask the foreperson to identify the juror, and consider removing them.
Judge Furman: I'm thinking of giving an instruction that deliberation requires consideration of the evidence. And if this problem continues, please ID the juror
Judge Furman: I'm thinking of giving an instruction that deliberation requires consideration of the evidence. And if this problem continues, please ID the juror
AUSA: We should follow the Baker case.
Judge Furman: In that case, there were three notes before they were asked to name-names. We don't know if it is a refusal to deliberate or a conscientious decision by her.
Judge Furman: In that case, there were three notes before they were asked to name-names. We don't know if it is a refusal to deliberate or a conscientious decision by her.
AUSA: Within an hour of them getting the 300 page transcript, we get this note. So it seems the juror is refusing to consider the transcript. So we think following Baker it would be appropriate to conduct an inquiry here.
Judge Furman: I'm not sure this is stronger than the request in Baker. Mr. Avenatti?
Avenatti: I object to any further instruction to the jury. I request a mistrial, now.
Avenatti: I object to any further instruction to the jury. I request a mistrial, now.
Avenatti: The idea that this juror has to justify her position to the other jurors is without merit. The jury is deadlocked. I am requested a mistrial. [Cites US v. Samet, 207 F. Supp. 269, Judge McMahon] law.justia.com/cases/federal/…
Judge Furman: The application is denied. We are nowhere near a mistrial. The note is that the juror is acting on a feeling, that it's all emotion, as in Baker. But I won't yet ask them to identify the juror. A more incremental approach is appropriate
AUSA: Let's add, If a juror continues to refuse to deliberate, you may provide me with a further note.
Avenatti: Let's just re-read them the initial instruction about deliberation.
Judge Furman: Maybe the 11 want to acquit - I don't know.
Avenatti: Re-read bias
Avenatti: Let's just re-read them the initial instruction about deliberation.
Judge Furman: Maybe the 11 want to acquit - I don't know.
Avenatti: Re-read bias
Avenatti: May I have a moment to confer with my advisory counsel?
Judge Furman: You may. And by the way, Samet is F.Supp 2d, not just F.Supp. And it may be Day 3, but it amounts to a day and half. And no deliberations during lunch due to social distancing.
Judge Furman: You may. And by the way, Samet is F.Supp 2d, not just F.Supp. And it may be Day 3, but it amounts to a day and half. And no deliberations during lunch due to social distancing.
Avenatti: I object to mentioning sympathy and emotion twice. That's undue emphasis. I propose the Court use the original charge. I'll read it --
Judge Furman: It's in the record, you don't need to read it.
Judge Furman: It's in the record, you don't need to read it.
Avenatti: The language of the draft answer is coercive and threatening. And I object, there's no need to bring attention to this instruction.
Judge Furman: I propose to add that the defendant has no burden... Then I'll ask them to return to the jury room and deliberate.
AUSA: It doesn't seem the jury has any confusion about the burden of proof.
Judge Furman: We're in sensitive territory
AUSA: It doesn't seem the jury has any confusion about the burden of proof.
Judge Furman: We're in sensitive territory
Jury entering!
Judge Furman: We have received your note... Your verdict must be based on the evidence... I ask you to continue deliberating. If anyone refuses to deliberate, you are free to send us another note.
Judge Furman: We have received your note... Your verdict must be based on the evidence... I ask you to continue deliberating. If anyone refuses to deliberate, you are free to send us another note.
Jury leaves.
Stories soon on InnerCityPress.com and patreon.com/MatthewRussell… (and, story on and video from UN noon briefing Inner City Press is banned from by UNSG @antonioguterres who is at the #GenocideGames, hiding in the Bird's Nest from questions
Stories soon on InnerCityPress.com and patreon.com/MatthewRussell… (and, story on and video from UN noon briefing Inner City Press is banned from by UNSG @antonioguterres who is at the #GenocideGames, hiding in the Bird's Nest from questions
With jury gone, Avenatti says his interviews (on Foley Square, including the hotdog interviews, which Judge Furman says he has not seen) comply with the rules. He calls Stormy Daniels on CNN outrageous.
Thread will continue.
Thread will continue.
OK - drum roll - Judge Furman has taken the bench again, and the jury is entering.
In US v. Avenatti:
Count 1, wire fraud: Guilty.
Count 2, aggravated ID theft: Guilty.
Count 1, wire fraud: Guilty.
Count 2, aggravated ID theft: Guilty.
In front of the SDNY courthouse, TV cameras begin to assemble... Inner City Press will head out there soon, very soon. 
Thread will resume shortly - right now in full news-gathering mode
We're in 26th floor hallway outside courtroom. FD Dalack came out, in Michigan cap, and closed door.
Avenatti team came out with evidence cart, then went back in. Prosecutors left without comment.
Court staff peaks out into hallway, then locks door. "They can come out, but they can't go back in." There's no going back.
Avenatti emerges, says, I am very disappointed in the verdict and look forward to a full adjudication on appeal."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
