[U: Or.. NOT.] Likely My Last Post, Here — On Mr. Greebel’s Trial, Proper.

UPDATED @ Noon EST — 12.29.2017: Welp, something is clearly afoot, likely related to jury matters, in the Greebel trial. The able, level headed Judge Kiyo Matsumoto just effectively ordered that briefs be drafted by both sides (while watching bowl games) on New Years Day, and the day after, as to some matter or issue discussed this morning, by an unscheduled telephone conference, thus:

“…Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto: Telephone Conference as to Evan Greebel held on 12/29/2017. Appearances: Alixandra Smith, Esq., David Pitluck, Esq., and David Kessler, Esq., for the government; Reed Brodsky, Esq., Randy Mastro, Esq., and Joshua Dubin, Esq. for defendant Evan Greebel, also present. The court ordered supplemental briefing by January 2, 2018 at 6 p.m., with responses, if any, by January 3, 2018 at 2 p.m. (Court Reporter David Roy.) (Tata, Vivek)….”

From the looks of that, this must go to the heart of some part of the rulings at trial, or the conduct of one or more jurors. So this won’t be the last Greebel post, after all. Assuming there is no reason for me to withhold these pending letter briefs, you may expect to read them here on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively — as PACER publishes the same.

It could be a simple matter, but that seems unlikely, given that we already have a verdict, and the jurors have been released (i.e., what’s the rush, here?). All the more unlikely given that below is the usual post trial matters schedule. I suppose it could be a request for a last vacation out of the country, on the part of Mr. Greebel — which usually a convicted felon would not be granted… but I honestly have no idea.

Stay tuned. [End, Updated Portion.]

12.28.2017: Here is what Mr. Greebel’s post trial calendar looks like, at present — in the order entered overnight — by the able Judge Matsumoto:

Defendant’s post-trial motions shall be filed by February 7, 2018; the government shall file its opposition by March 7, 2018; and the defendant’s reply is due by March 21, 2018. (Court Reporter David Roy.) (Tata, Vivek) Modified on 12/28/2017 (Galeano, Sonia)….

All of which points toward a likely late May or early June 2018 sentencing date, assuming there are no hiccups. But there are very likely to be far more scheduling hiccups here, than with old Marty.

Mr. Greebel (and his counsel) will find a way to stretch the schedule — since he is not likely to have to surrender, until after sentencing (entirely unlike Marty).

Now you know. [Separately, from a 12.28.2017 minute entry, we’ve learned that there were eight separate juror notes, from various jurors, but three jurors created at least six of them — during deliberations.]

Nota Bene: And in the comments below, shortly (like tomorrow) will be the November and October withheld Greebel trial materials, once again in reverse date order. The December 2017 ones are in the comments to the original post announcing his conviction, of yesterday.



6 thoughts on “[U: Or.. NOT.] Likely My Last Post, Here — On Mr. Greebel’s Trial, Proper.

  1. R West says:

    “…. likely related to jury matters, in the Greebel trial.”

    Agree. Could have something to do with the alternate … defendant might be saying they should have waited for the original juror to get well. Fact Judge wants to hear it so fast means she may be thinking the jury might need to be sent back in to deliberate with the original juror. Something like that. But whatever it is … you know the defendant is going to lose!

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      I cannot imagine that Judge Matsumoto would ever allow the jury to be re-empaneled — not after being free to consume media (like that found here), for a full week. I agree — it doesn’t bode well for the defense…

      Personally I suspect the defense is claiming some form of jury taint has been allegedly discovered…

      Should be interesting, either way.

      Namaste — and a happy new year to all!


      • R West says:

        Condor is correct … the jury was both “discharged and dispersed,” so in a Second Circuit federal criminal trial, they can’t be called back:

        U.S. v. Rojas, 617 F.3d 669 (2010). [Discharged jury could be called back since they hadn’t left the courthouse and thus were not “dispersed.”]

        If they can’t bring the jury back, not sure what the rush would be … Judge probably going on vacation!

        Liked by 1 person

  2. R West says:

    Second Circuit does seem to have a fair number of reversals, but it likes to overturn cases based on broad legal principles …. especially if they are novel issues. Don’t see where the defendant here is really getting into any key legal tests. Most of these nitpicking things complained about just aren’t going to be enough to help the defendant on appeal, even if the Judge ruled wrong on some of them!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. condor says:

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.