The AUSAs Are Right: There Will Be No Post-Verdict “Acquittal” On Count Eight.

Here is the AUSAs rather deft response — all 20 pages of it, as a PDF file. It is a winner.


Namaste — xee ya’ (next) in Court, in Brooklyn, arriving in orange — next year, Marty.


7 thoughts on “The AUSAs Are Right: There Will Be No Post-Verdict “Acquittal” On Count Eight.

  1. John Galt says:

    Very strange that his attorneys filed a Rule 29 on *only* count 8, and gave up on the other two convictions. Even if they didn’t expect to prevail before the district court (which indeed would have been unlikely), their decision to simply not move for post-trial acquittal at all means they are all but forfeiting their right to challenge the remaining counts on further appeal.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Exactly. I think it speaks to the overwhelming evidence of guilt offered by the AUSAs…

      Now, in a new topic — and likely forthcoming new post — I’ll write about the first three pages of this latter, filed overnight. What fascinates me about it is that the expert’s opinion as to what creates “restrictions” on controlling stake shares is accurate — insofar as it goes — but is incomplete.

      This actually matters — as to the motion for acquittal filed by Mr. Brafman, as well.

      The expert says that giving employees shares doesn’t (by itself) make them restricted.

      That is true — but incomplete. We have been told that the shares CAME FROM Fearnow (thus were restricted) — and due to Mr. Shkreli’s directions to Mr. Greebel: “split them up in this way…” Mr. Shkreli exercised control over them as well (and he is plainly an affiliate and control person at the relevant time)…

      So… there is really no question that the so-called Fearnow shares — even after they reach ordinary employees’ hands — AND even after, fraudulently, those employees say they are NOT EMPLOYEES — would STILL be considered restricted under Rule 144, as Mr. Shkreli fully intended, and did, in fact, control them — with overt oral and written threats of violence, among other things.

      The AUSAs will have a field day with the Greebel experts on this score.

      Thanks man — do stop back!



      • R West says:

        Count 8 is different. They likely aren’t giving up on the remaining two convictions. Since the prosecution’s allegedly false statement relating to Count 8 occurred during closing, I think Shkreli is saying he didn’t get a fair chance to refute it, so he’s filing a motion to vacate to correct a mistake that wasn’t fully argued at trial. On the other two convictions, his appeal grounds would have already been fully argued and considered by the court during the trial – so he wouldn’t move to vacate on those grounds. If the Judge said she fully considered the same grounds during the trial, then she could say the motion is wasting her time and impose sanctions on Shkreli or his attorneys, such as the Gov’t.’s attorney’s fees in replying. So Shkreli can still and likely will appeal the other two convictions.

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        The thing is it was Mr. Brafman who proposed the definition of affiliate — saying it was needed; the government argued and won on the notion that defining “affiliate” was unneeded, since the “attempt to control” is all that matters for a parking Count.

        In the end the able judge let Brafman argue to the jury that no one had been proved to be an affiliate — and only now does Brafman complain.

        That’s a loser, I think.

        Namaste man…


  2. R West says:

    Probably bad idea for Martin to have called the prosecutors “junior varsity.” I assume their normal work is good, but their briefs in this case are extremely good! Only thing I don’t know is how much they already have programmed into their word processor (because the same issues arise all the time) or how much they wrote from scratch, but it looks like they did a lot of custom work.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      I just think he’s going to say anything he thinks might now mitigate his sentence length. But that ship has already sailed, as to 95 per cent of it, anyway…

      Only the last five per cent is meaningfully in play now.

      Namaste — and it seems his fans may start publishing his “Letters, from Brooklyn Jail”…

      I’d not expect anything like Dr. King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, though. That was April 16,1963.

      Nothing at all like that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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