[U] That Time When The Shkreli Case Went To The Jury…

I’ll have more — including much improved graphics by Billy! and such. . . during the day. in moments — stuck on conference calls, already. Ugh.

Update: the rhyming closing defense meme explodes on journalists’ feeds:
“…He didn’t profit — so you must let him off it!….”

“…He found a cure, so you can’t be sure!…”

The entire twitter-verse is laughing lustily!

The sober, able AUSA answers, now in rebuttal:

“…Mr Brafman wants you to believe that Mr.Shkreli is perhaps the smartest man on the planet, so smart the rules of the law don’t apply to him….”

“…If you rob a bank, then rob another bank to pay back that bank, you still robbed the first bank….”

“…Martin Shkreli is not special. The law applies to him the same as you, me and everybody in this courtroom….”

Game. Set. Match.

End, update.

This is the open thread for Friday — and the day the jury was handed Martin Shkreli’s fate — and continued freedom.

We may well not know until mid next week, but there is little that anyone can do to change the outcome, now — whatever that might be.

Onward.

100 thoughts on “[U] That Time When The Shkreli Case Went To The Jury…”

      • condor says:
        Reply

        And our own erstwhile PathoPhilia tries to help out… as both women are undoubtedly good people — but the object lesson is that Marty is really… toxic.

        Liked by 1 person

          • condor says:
            Reply

            I think writing a book … is different, than reporting the news. Think here of Truman Capote, and the Holcomb, Kansas murderers at the heart of “In Cold Blood”.

            I don’t know — nor frankly do I care to spend any time of my own, trying to figure it out — whether she has gone “inside” to better craft her true crime novel, if (like Capote) that is what hers will be.

            But the reporter’s rules may well not there apply.

            She indicates she’s on leave from the MSM job, likely due to this writing project — whatever it turns out to be. But certainly, if she has (even by artifice) won his confidence, we may learn new things, in her telling.

            I will of course read it with a modicum of skepticism, to the extent it touches on his crime spree. In that way it is a bit like reading “In Cold Blood”.

            We shall see. Namaste — but it does seem a lil’ Peyton Place, to pay his personal life too much mind.

            That said — go kick his ass! — metaphorically, of course, Ms. Duca!

            Like

  6. R West says:
    Reply

    Federal sentencing guidelines are amazingly complex:
    https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines
    If convicted on one of the more serious 20-yr. charges, Martin is probably at level 34 (there’s +4 points for a CEO) … so he’s looking at about 12.5 – 15.5 years. Plus if convicted on more than one charge, Judge has the option to make the sentence partially consecutive. Judge has a record of middle-of-the-road sentencing, so a 12 to 14 year sentence is the probable range. Definitely more than 10 years, which would send him to a real penitentiary initially. It’s unlikely he realizes how tough federal sentencing is … if Judge says conspiracy charge should be tacked on rather than run concurrent, he could be looking at 15+!

    Liked by 1 person

    • R West says:
      Reply

      CNBC says: “The trial began in late June. Shkreli faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, but even if found guilty of all charges he is not likely to be sentenced to more than 10 years.”

      I don’t think that’s right. The big inside traders all got about 10 years, but they also plead guilty. Defendants who go to trial are punished much more severely. The Idea is to force 95% of defendants to plead guilty … whether they want to or not!

      Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:
        Reply

        I think I may be the main culprit (as quoted by MSM — lots of those writers visit daily here) for the “he will get ten” mantra (mine is based on a conviction on Count Eight alone). Smile…

        Liked by 1 person

      • R West says:
        Reply

        I get offense level 33 or 35:

        Click to access Sentencing_Table.pdf

        Base for financial fraud: 7
        $10M loss: +20
        10 victims (?): +2
        Sophisticated means: +2
        CEO: +4

        Even if just 33, minimum guideline is 135 months, or 11.25 years. But mid-range is more likely with this Judge: 12.5 years. But one could easily get to level 35, and that’s 14 years minimum.

        Liked by 1 person

        • condor says:
          Reply

          I am sure you are right, especially about the able judge’s discretion to make parts of the sentence consecutive, and not concurrent — given the diversity of the counts.

          And I am hopeful she will lean toward the higher end. A message needs to be sent — related to “bro” culture (see tech as well as pharma, on that score)… and bro culture crosses gender: ask Billy about Ms. Holmes — of Theranos.

          Onward, to Monday!

          Liked by 1 person

      • al says:
        Reply

        Why do I have a feeling he will get 2 years (leniency for making people money, being a rare situation) ?

        While what you said is true, can judges make their own final decision, bending the rules?

        IDK. For some reason I see a 2 year sentence coming.

        Liked by 1 person

        • condor says:
          Reply

          If he is convicted, the Judge has only very limited “downward departure” discretion, from the sentencing guidelines, in the federal system.

          So — my hunch is that he gets 10, minimum.

          But it is a hunch only.

          Namaste, al…

          Like

    • aldt440 says:
      Reply

      Federal sentencing guidelines are extremely complicated. I’ve read 3 different dissertations about loss calculation in the last 20 minutes and still don’t understand how the law will be applied to Shkreli’s case. I’m not confident that loss calculation will be easily quantified if he isn’t convicted on all charges.

      Proximate causation is going to be a big can of worms.

      DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO 544 U.S. 336 (2005) seems to be one of the dominant cases on the matter.

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/336/opinion.html

      Liked by 1 person

  8. R West says:
    Reply

    Martin will probably be convicted on all eight counts, as the letter/email “I hope to see you and your four children homeless and will do whatever I can to assure this,” … pretty much killed him!

    Like someone said, “even the Mafia doesn’t go after someone’s wife and children.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • condor says:
      Reply

      And on his Facebook front page, Mr. Shkreli now (as of one hour ago, anyway) indicates he is “in a relationship” with Emily Saul. Yes, the journalist.

      This guy just positively wants to be arrested — for cyber-stalking journalists, I gather. Given his prior conduct, this sort of behavior can also lead to a police report — and a knock and announce from New York’s finest. They’d simply tell him to knock it off, and let it go at that… but when they figure out it was THAT Martin Shkreli — the one who price gouged dying AIDS patients… they might just give him a wood shampoo, before they leave (that’s a few love taps with a night stick — on the hairy part of the twerp’s noggin’, where the swelling will be hard to detect)…

      She has covered the trial factually and fairly — which is to say, she has written the truth about Mr. Shkreli’s abberant ways. SO now she is a target.

      Charming — just more pre-sentencing report material.

      Like

        • condor says:
          Reply

          Update: apparently to avoid being banned on Facebook, Mr. Shkreli removed Ms. Saul’s image from his “in a relationship” notice.

          But Kk — do go read her actual MSM writings on him. Quite justifiably, and righteously (given his treatment of Ms. Duca), she is no fan of his.

          Her comment literally drips with her fully intended irony.

          Namaste!

          Like

          • Kk says:
            Reply

            Will do. Thanks for the info. She said, “it’s complicated” and when someone asked her if she wished it were true she said, “something like that”. Seems like she would have answered differently.

            Liked by 1 person

            • condor says:
              Reply

              I hear you — but based on her prior Facebook postings… I will stick with the theory that she finds him repellent.

              Namaste

              Like

    • FTD says:
      Reply

      Why on earth did someone email her and give her that quote? If you are sorry for saying it, don’t bait a woman to respond for your article to get more views. No person wants to be informed of something like that. The media will make sure the comment is heard without Lauren’s reaction.

      That is so not cool to me. She has been stressed out enough for just commenting on this person in the media. Leave her alone and let her move on with her life. She doesn’t want to be anchored to this bullshit. That’s my rant take on this, folks. šŸ™‚

      Liked by 2 people

      • condor says:
        Reply

        I would only add that Mr. Shkreli essentially threatened rape — no sentient person, having seen the altered images, and vile things Mr. Shkreli wrote — could ever conclude he’d be receiving anything consensually, from her.

        So his of a few nights ago was essentially a rape fantasy, authored by him. Given his prior conduct, the words alone may be actionable (at least in a civil proceeding for intentional infliction of emotional distress).

        And should touch her, and she Bobbitt him — it would be self defense in the eyes of the law… old Marty may need federal protective custody… from her scissors!

        On this one — I’d say anything Ms. Duca does to him… he “had it comin’….”

        Liked by 1 person

  17. FTD says:
    Reply

    Another recap

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/28/prosecutor-cites-avalanche-of-evidence-that-buries-martin-shkreli.html

    What else is there to say? The prosecution and defense have rested. Let’s see how the jury absorbs everything in these past weeks & give us a worthwhiile verdict. Take away his money and give it all to rare illness research. Shkreli said it himself, he forfeits his right & allows the jury to decide what to do with his wealth. I say be a good samaritan and help out the people who need it. šŸ™‚

    Liked by 1 person

      • billythekid9919 says:
        Reply

        Almost anyone who has observed Marty for any length of time fails to find him a sympathetic figure… Let alone being ripped from your daily routine BECAUSE of his ass. With him smirking etc. 8 hours a day for a month right in front of you. All while people go over his past misdeeds chapter and verse… The sympathy vote isn’t going to get it done!

        Liked by 1 person

    • FTD says:
      Reply

      He’s done so much more shit that hasn’t been picked up. I’m not even joking, where do you start with martin’s crossing the line?

      I have one for you, he would go on dating sites and critique the girls, (which is fine, it is juvenile & horrible optics but still legal) But where it is a no go is where he shows the photo, shows her facebook & shows her family members on livestream. I don’t think that is allowed as part of the rules of having a youtube channel.

      There is so much more. That Duca comment is a starting point. I could talk about his blatant giving racists a platform for laughs on his Blab stream.

      And a lot of this shit is archived, I would ban from the internet for life. He should be the first person who can’t use the internet ever. That’s how irresponsible i think he is with personal information from others.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. al says:
    Reply

    I’m not very familiar with case rules, but, why did this trial go to jury? Is the government now allowed to let the judge decide, based on raw evidence? Doesn’t the jury feel like the government doesn’t isn’t even sure if he’s guilty which is why they want the jury to decide?

    Also, are rigged juries even a thing or is that nonsense?

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:
      Reply

      The constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to a jury trial. Martin chose it — no one can take it away… amendment six.

      Rigging a federal jury would be well-nigh impossible… in my experienced opinion.

      Good questions!

      Like

  26. Mr Rhymes says:
    Reply

    More specifically, Martin is hanging his hopes on the first paragraph of page 48/98 in the Jury Instructions (Revised). Martin was talking about this on Discord last night. What say you, Condor.

    Like

    • condor says:
      Reply

      I say… a snowball has a better chance — of not melting — in the River Styx….

      “…No amount of honest belief on the part of a defendant that the scheme ultimately will make a profit for the investors will excuse fraudulent actions or false representations by him….”

      That’s a dead lift from page 48.

      He’s toast.

      Like

  27. FTD says:
    Reply

    That PKAN clinical drug garbage was such bullshit. Someone should make that drug and send it to a lab to see what the professionals say. I bet you it is another con.

    Now we need to prosecute Mulleady/Mithani and Biestek šŸ™‚

    Like

    • condor says:
      Reply

      The instructions say that acting in good faith — defined as “consistent honesty IN ALL MATERIAL FACTS, and a sincere and reasonable belief that one is complying with the law…” (i.e., not this case!)… is a defense to all but Count Eight.

      On Count Eight, he would need to prove he relied on counsel’s advice — to establish his good faith. And that would be after disclosing everything to counsel, and then following the advice — to the letter.

      When his lawyer (Mr. Greebel) told him what he should do about the cheap Retrophin shares he was obsessing about… he said (in writing, which he declined to explain, in any way) “f that!”…

      And when he swore to the SEC on Schedule(s) 13D… that he did NOT control the Fearnow shares…

      He then — in writing! — menaced the wife and children of a Fearnow (parked securities) nominal shareholder — if the nominal holder did not obey his wishes, and let him control the disposition of those shares — yes, the same shares (which he said under oath he did not control).

      Stick a fork in that — that’s just a little short on “good faith“.

      On all the other counts, if the jury finds Mr. Shkreli lied about any of the account statements, or how much he had under management — then there can be no good faith defense. Must have acted with honesty in fact. He didn’t. The end.

      Like

    • aldt440 says:
      Reply

      To the closing arguments in the trial of his client, Martin Shkreli, the lawyer Benjamin Brafman brought a tale about a wild dog and a wagon, a metaphor about himself as a lifeguard, a Texas accent to mimic an investor, a poster that asked in all caps, ā€œWHERE ARE THESE WITNESSES?ā€ and a bag of Ruffles as a prop.

      The government brought a PowerPoint presentation.

      Like

    • condor says:
      Reply

      And in a cheesy echo of “if the glove won’t fit, you must acquit…”

      Meg Tirrell @megtirrell
      Ā·
      1m
      Brafman: “This case has so many reasonable doubts, you must hesitate! You must hesitate!” #ShkreliTrial

      Do follow Meg and Dan this morning… he’s 90 minutes in, on his 20 minutes — from last night.

      And says he still has ten more minutes…

      Hilarious. He’s simply rearranging deck chairs… on Titanic.

      But she’s already left port, steamed off for… New York — overnight…

      Namaste…

      Like

    • condor says:
      Reply

      New memes: “he didn’t profit — you must let him off it!

      “He found a cure, so you can’t be sure!…”

      The twitter-verse is laughing lustily!

      Namaste

      Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.