UPDATED: 4 PM EDT — The able AUSAs just filed a reply/rejoinder, to Mr. Shkreli’s of this afternoon, below — as they walked into court, this afternoon. Here it is (as a six page PDF file) — as well. [Their original motion is about four paragraphs below. End, update.]
The able Judge Matsumoto just ordered both sides to show up in Brooklyn in an hour, so that she may conduct some “from the bench” questioning, in real time, with no jury present — and hear oral argument — on the pending motions:
…SCHEDULING ORDER as to Martin Shkreli.
The court will hear argument on the government’s [273] motion and defendant’s [274] response at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 20, 2017….
Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/20/2017….
And here is the 22 page PDF file of Mr. Shkreli’s opposition memo of law. It was filed an hour or so ago.
I still think the government has the better of the arguments ( as a refresher, the government’s motion to admit is here). The agreements (subject to limiting instructions) are clearly admissible in any way the government chooses to present its case.
It is not the obligation of the AUSAs to provide Mr. Shkreli with opportunities to take pot shots at the people who signed the agreements. And the reason they won’t agree to testify in Mr. Shkreli’s case is (wait for it!)… not due to government overreach, of any sort — but due to Mr. Shkreli’s very shabby treatment of all of them. [When people get spooked because they might have (at least arguably) conspired/colluded with a kingpin — in commiting felonies, it is not the government’s duty to help the kingpin get these same people on the stand as “hostile” witnesses, for the defense. Of course, Mr. Shkreli will not be called, in a week or two — in the defense’s case, to “clear all this up” — as that would put him in the cross-hairs of some brutal cross-examination.]
Said another way, choosing to invoke one’s fifth amendment rights — is absolutely allowed, here in our system of ordered liberty — but no one ever said it was… free of all perils, Mr. Shkreli.
The government is not obligated to even arguably damage its own case, solely help you win your case, once you invoke your fifth amendment rights. No one is preventing these witnesses from being called by the defense, that is. But don’t hold your breath — they aren’t going to show up and be helpful to Mr. Shkreli’s cause. No chance, and that is what has the defense so addled, at bottom.
Something we’ve seen over and over and over, in these four weeks — Mr. Shkreli’s karma coming back to him.
Welcome to your karmic wheel, Mr. Shkreli.
Onward, and Namaste…
Martin Shkreli: Transitioning... To A Free Man. 
Condor, heads up:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3da74/martin-shkreli-is-on-trial-for-the-wrong-thing
Looks like this writer has the wrong idea in this article. She doesn’t understand why it is important he goes to prison. Might make a good write up to teach readers what the non professional is missing when it comes to legal matters regarding this case. š
LikeLiked by 1 person
So… What happened? I’ve been off the grid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No order yet. We may only find out when testimony begins tomorrow! I’m at a client dinner — will check at 11 pm…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was off the grid while at a client meeting. I will not volunteer my score today.
LikeLike
Judge is probably preparing some lengthy Order herself … she knows it’s going to be appealed later … which means she’s ruling for the Gov’t. In the end, all this is going to add to Shkreli’s sentence though … one can’t put the Gov’t. to this much trouble and expense, and then expect to waltz out at the end with a light sentence!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Big difference between state court and Federal court though … in Fed court, it’s more pro-gov’t. with 90% conviction rate. Defense argument really needs to go to a fundamental due process right …they give it their best shot on fairness, but fact defense can call the same witnesses would seem to seal the deal!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hear you. It could also be that in federal court — the US attorney will mostly only prosecute cases they are pretty certain they can win (i.e., guys they are certain are… guilty).
Good stuff!
LikeLike
BTW … qualify of these briefs in such a short time is amazing. These lawyers have skills … and they apparently hate each other!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed!
LikeLike
“I still think the government has the better of the arguments…”
Of course! Deck is stacked against criminal defendants … guess gov’t. and you will be right 95% of the time!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm. The pro bono cases I’ve taken involved actual innocence; so maybe I’m biased.
And I’ll openly admit to a bias — against Mr. Shkreli. Strike that. I’ll admit that I’ve watched him closely across three, now four companies — and so my experience is (not my bias, any longer) that he simply believes no law applies to him.
He’s of the mind that criminal fraud statutes are only for the little people. He shows it every day.
Even so — I do agree that the government may move very slowly… but it usually gets its man.
Will be true here, as well.
Do offer us more of your perspective: don’t you think the presumption of innocence (and unanimous verdict rule) give defendants at least some leeway?
Look at OJ, for example: that case proved the government cannot frame-up a guilty man — if he happens to be famous, and well-liked (at least on his prior public persona).
And that is the opposite of how the world sees Mr. Shkreli. And that he’s… guilty.
[Eventually even OJ got caught in a later crime spree… and there was no nullification to save him. Times had changed — as had public perception of him.]
I think Martin believes he is still seen as the kid who purportedly graduated Columbia at 16.
No one on the jury thinks of him that way — any longer.
Counterpoint, R West?
Namaste
LikeLike