Jury to Hear About Michael Avenatti's Debts, Stormy Daniels Case in Nike Extortion Trial
Any mention of President Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels, a former client of Michael Avenatti who sued the president, prosecutors said, would taint the case with politics and only serve to confuse the jury.
January 22, 2020 at 06:29 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Prosecutors in Michael Avenatti's extortion case will be allowed to tell a jury about some of the millions of dollars in debts that the embattled attorney owed at the time of his alleged shakedown of Nike Inc., a Manhattan federal judge ruled Wednesday.
The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the Southern District of New York, came during a nearly five-hour hearing, as attorneys argued over what evidence they'd be able to present to a jury during the trial's opening arguments next week.
Avenatti and his lawyers had asked Gardephe in court papers to exclude evidence of his financial condition, including personal debts and large expenditures of lavish items, claiming that it was irrelevant and would expose Avenatti to prejudice by the jury.
Prosecutors, however, have said they want to use the evidence to help establish Avenatti's motive in threatening to go public with damaging information about the company, unless it agreed to pay Avenatti and fellow attorney Mark Geragos between $15 and $25 million to conduct an internal investigation of Nike's practices.
Gardephe on Wednesday blocked the prosecution from introducing disputed evidence of a loan Avenatti had taken from Geragos, as well as certain debts he owed to former clients. But the judge did allow prosecutors to cite other financial obligations he said "became pressing" by the time Avenatti contacted Nike and its attorneys in March 2019.
Those debts, Gardephe said, included a $7.2 million judgment against Avenatti, a $1.5 million tax warrant and more than $2 million he owed in spousal and child support.
Avenatti, who rose to prominence representing adult film star Stormy Daniels in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, has maintained his innocence, claiming that he was simply trying to secure a settlement for his client, a California-based youth basketball coach who claimed to have information about improper payments Nike allegedly made to college basketball recruits.
He has also claimed that his prosecution in the Southern District was at least partially motivated by his opposition to Trump and his presidency.
Nike, for its part, has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crimes.
Attorneys on Wednesday tussled over what exactly jurors should be told regarding Avenatti and the reputation he built as a firebrand attorney and Trump antagonist.
The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office argued against including any references to Avenatti's representation of Daniels, who accused Trump of engaging in an extramarital affair—a claim the president has repeatedly denied. Any mention of Trump or Daniels, prosecutors said, would taint the case with politics and only serve to confuse the jury.
Defense attorney Howard Srebnick, who plans to deliver opening statements in the case, argued that Franklin had hired Avenatti precisely because of the high profile he could bring to the case, based on his representation of Daniels.
Gardephe said that "nothing could please me more" than to keep Trump and Daniels out of the trial, but he noted that even the government's indictment referenced Avenatti's large public following, which was a direct result of his representation of the performer.
"Let's be honest, it drove the conduct of everyone involved," Gardephe said.
"I can't pretend there was sort of an immaculate conception here where Mr. Avenatti suddenly became this incredibly public lawyer magically," he said.
Gardephe also confirmed Wednesday that jury selection in the case would begin Jan. 27, after the trial was delayed following Avenatti's arrest for violating the terms of his pretrial release in California.
The U.S. Marshals Service last week transported Avenatti to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, where he is being held in a special housing unit pending trial.
Avenatti's attorneys have complained that their client had been placed in solitary confinement, and restrictive conditions at the jail had made it difficult to effectively prepare his defense.
MCC's warden on Tuesday told Gardephe that Avenatti would be allowed to keep legal papers in his cell and access a computer to review discovery, but the decision to keep him in solitary confinement was made "for his own safety," due to his notoriety.
Attorney Scott Srebnick, who is leading Avenatti's defense, said Wednesday that Avenatti's housing status was "affecting his mental state, his ability to work with us," and once again asked the judge to petition the federal Bureau of Prisons to move his client into general population.
Gardephe ordered MCC to submit another letter to the court stating whether there was a specific reason Avenatti could not be moved to general population.
Warden M. Licon-Vitale seemingly resisted the request to move Avenatti in partially redacted letter late Wednesday, saying that staff had "serious concerns" about his safety should he be transferred to a general population unit.
"Keeping Mr. Avenatti in the special housing unit allows MCC New York staff to maintain closer supervision and better ensure his safety," Licon-Vitale said. "While Mr. Avenatti is housed at MCC NY, our staff will continue to review his housing assignment to determine suitability for general population."
Attorneys are expected to appear before Gardephe again Jan. 27, with opening arguments slated to begin Jan. 29. In total, Gardephe said he expects the trial to last about two and a half weeks.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readBig Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250