Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

For Nike Extortion Trial Jury Charge Avenatti Objects To Vagueness and California Duties

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 12 – In the endgame of the US v. Michael Avenatti Nike extortion trial, on February 10 the charging conference was held, until 7:10 pm. See Patreon here.

  On February 11, over hours, the closing arguments were held. Inner City Press live-tweeted them, in 96 installments, here.

  Early on February 12, Avenatti's lawyer Scott Srebnick submitted objections to the jury charge, including "to the absence of a willfulness instruction on Counts One and Two; 2. Mr. Avenatti objects to all instructions on duties under California law (Dkt. No. 258:33-36).

3. The Court informs the jury at Dkt. No. 258:33 that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as an element of honest services wire fraud, that Mr. Avenatti violated one of more duties that he owed Mr. Franklin under California law, but then the elements of Count Three at Dkt. No. 258:37-43 do not explicitly provide that the jury must unanimously find a violation of a particular duty (nor unanimously agree on which one). Therefore, Mr. Avenatti objects on the basis that it is not clear whether the jury must unanimously find a violation of a particular duty (e.g., loyalty, confidentiality, reasonable communication, scope of authority, etc).

  On February 11 Assistant US Attorney Matthew Podolsky led off with the now famous "have you held the clients balls in your hands" audio, and went on from there.

 Avenatti's lawyer Scott Srebnick covered the case focusing on the desired and goals of client Gary Franklin and his consultant Jeffrey Auerbach.

 His brother Howard Srebnick followed with the case from the perspective of Avenatti in New York, saying he was carring out Franklin's stated desire to "light the fuse" for justice.

  AUSA Daniel Richenthal derided that narrative, and told the jury it didn't matter that Mark Geragos, much less Nike, were not charged. But might it, when the jury begins to deliberate on February 12?  More on Patreon here.

   Next are the jury charge and deliberations - and verdict. Watch this platform.  US v. Avenatti, 19-cr-373 (Gardephe).


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] for