UPDATED: Saturday July 22, 2017 @ 6 AM EDT: After midnight on Friday, the able AUSAs submitted their fourteen page response to Mr. Shkreli’s Friday afternoon papers, seeking to exclude up to 32 emails and related documents.
Here is that latest government brief, in the form of a 14 page letter.
I will quote just a bit:
“…The bulk of the defendant’s arguments as to specific documents go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The Court should overrule the defendant’s objections and permit the jury to weigh the full range of evidence available in this case to determine the defendant’s guilt….
The defendant is free to argue that the jury should not give much weight to these documents,
but there is no basis for excluding them….
The evidence adduced so far has provided independent corroborating evidence that Evan Greebel, Kevin Mulleady and Marek Biestek were among the defendant’s co-conspirators. Coupled with the statements of Greebel, Mulleady and Biestek themselves, the government has more than satisfied its burden of showing by a mere preponderance that they were the defendant’s co-conspirators [thus the emails show attempts to further the conspiracy]….
[In one]… email chain dated February 13, 2013, Greebel specifically notifies the defendant that he is “the director and CEO of a public company” and as such “now ha[s] a duty of loyalty” to the company. Thus “getting stock below market could be problematic[.]” The defendant [Mr. Shkreli] responds: “f that.” The defendant further asserts that he is free to buy stock of Retrophin at below market prices and Greebel asks the defendant to discuss the issue with him….”
He is… not. A myriad of federal criminal statute citations available upon request. And let us call this Lie No. 3, for “The Blob”. About 90 per cent of Mr. Shkreli’s defense theory is that he followed counsel. “F-that” is not exactly… following advice. And it shows what I’ve said all along — he simply does not believe any rules (criminal, or otherwise)… apply to him. That’s my opinion.
[Oh. Yes. Also for the Blob — please read the top of page 13 — for a stunning admission of a conspiracy to defraud a public company. I’ll likely make it a new post for Sunday, unless we get juicier stuff by then. And Mr. Shkreli has asserted under oath that he was a faithful, if poorly advised steward of that public company.]
Now you know — I expect at least two more memos of law this weekend, and I will post them right here. [End updated portion.]
As the weekend memos of law and briefs roll in, we have the first, as of Friday afternoon, a two page letter from Mr. Brafman’s firm — trying to say that certain emails should not be admitted into evidence.
Certainly, as to any email in which Mr. Shkreli wrote something substantive — there is no basis not to admit it, unless it is not probative of the charges. That is, each of those ought to be admitted (a very low standard of relevance here applies). They are his own words — he cannot be heard to complain about that, unless he says someone was impersonating him.
And now, near midnight, Eastern — the AUSAs have added seven pages of PDF persuasion of their own, to Judge Matsumoto’s weekend reading — on the consulting agreements’ admissibility (without the signing parties testifying) — both more narrowly, and more broadly.
More to be added, over the weekend — as the same are filed. Off to watch the lightning, locally!