Saturday, April 29, 2023

In Let's Get It On Trial Ed Sheeran Sings Amy Wadge Chords On the Stand with Just Jack Echo


by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 27 – In 2017 Ed Sheeran was sued for allegedly infringing the copyright of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" in his 2014 song, "Thinking Out Loud." 

 On April 24, 2023 the jury begins before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Louis L. Stanton. Inner City Press will cover it. 

 The actual Marvin Gaye recording may not be played for the jury. But a 2014 YouTube concern clip of Sheeran breaking into Let's Get It On while (singing) Thinking Out Loud may be - the clip is here, at 4:29.

   The plaintiff is not Marvin Gaye but rather Kathryn Griffin-Townsend as heir of Ed Townsend, Gaye's co-writer on "Let's Get It On." Among plaintiffs' counsel is Ben Crump.

On April 24 for jury selection, Crump was there. In the jury pool were a musicology, a mother with two daughters who are Sheeran fans, and a woman who had Sheeran's "Perfect" as her wedding song. Thread here. The jury was picked and sent home; chords - four or six was the debate - were played.

On April 25, opening arguments and witnesses including Ed Sheeran (who later left court without comment). Inner City Press was there, thread here.

  After a musicology and the plaintiff rested, on April 27 Ed Sheeran took the stand. Inner City Press was there and live tweeted, thread here:

The defense case has begun... with Ed Sheeran on the stand. Counsel: Who is Just Jack? Sheeran: He took my on my first big UK tour.  My cousin worked in a studio in London. What I recorded then were like sketches before a painting, not in my discography

 Counsel: When did you get a manager? Sheeran: At 16. He found me on MySpace. It was 2007. I released five EPs & I got signed in 2011.

Counsel: What is grind? Sheeran: It's like hip hop but faster, like 140 beats per minutes instead of 90 or 100. I grew up with it

 Sheeran: I was brought up on Elton John, Van Morrison. Stevie Wonder, I love. Counsel: How has your songwriting changed? Sheeran: You get better with time.

 Sheeran: You put your foot on the gas when you make an album then you take your foot off the gas. That's usually when good things happen. Counsel: Who is Amy Wadge? Sheeran: I went up to co-write with her.  We wrote four or five songs the first day.

 Counsel: When did you write Thinking out Loud? Sheeran: In February 2014. With Amy Wadge.She was staying with me, to catch up

Counsel: What was going on in your personal life? Sheeran: My grandfather had recently died. My grandmother had cancer. A new relationship

 Counsel: That's visit, did you two write any other songs?

Sheeran: Yes, a song I did with a Dutch artist that never got released. And maybe one other one. Counsel: Do you recall what time of day? Sheeran: Evening, because we broke for dinner.

Sheeran: I came out of the shower and heard the chords Amy was playing. I thought, we need to do that. After dinner, we did. Counsel: Did you use guitars? Sheeran: I have a lot of guitars in my house. We went back and forth on the chords for the bridge.

Sheeran: It's a collaboration. The melody changes. You discuss. I find when I write vocal melodies, I do it phonetically. At first it was, I'm singing out now. Which is like "I'm thinking out loud."

Sheeran: My Irish grandfather passed away. My other set, my grandmother, she'd lost the ability to walk. I thought, what must they be feeling. I've got another song about my grandfather's Alzheimer's. 

Counsel: Who came up with the chords? Sheeran: Amy.

 Counsel: You heard Doctor Stewart? Sheeran: Yeah.  Counsel: He said the second chord is different in the first 24 seconds - what do you have to say?

Sheeran: He's saying it because it helps his case. I'm not the world's most talented guitarist... [Plays]

Sheeran (singing) "When your legs don't work" Judge Stanton: Let's end here. See you Monday. Have a good weekend.


and more including on testy on Substack here

   Team Crump email on Patreon here

More after Sheeran on defense case on Substack here

The case is Griffin, et al. v. Sheeran, et al., 17-cv-5221 (Stanton) 

***

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.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

First Republic Searches For Savior But KeyCorp Can't Get a Handout for Disinvestment

 

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, April 26 – Key Bank is in decline, in consumer compliance and in fair lending - and now, in deposits and stock price.

  Faring worse, at least for now, is First Republic. The talk is of a bailout or forced sale. But to whom?

   With the US bank regulators giving away troubled banks, Silicon Valley Bank to First Citizens, and Signature Bank to NYCB, it is imperative they know the Key Bank cannot be given any more branches, any more communities to take advantage of. Already, Key has government contract to distribute benefits, and garnish wages.

   Fair Finance Watch, looking at Key Bank's 2021 lending at first in New York State, notes that while Key Bank made 7916 mortgage loans to whites, with 1733 denials, it made only 266 loans to African Americans, with fully 140 denial.   It should be sued by the Department of Justice, and many others - just ask NCRC.

  Key Bank is, Fair Finance Watch now says, the Key to Disinvestment. It is the redlining bank.

Reporting from and on the Federal courts, Inner City Press has noticed a slew of data breach cases filed against KeyCorp, since August 2022, now moving toward a multi-district consolidation - in February 2023 to the Northern District of Georgia, to the Honorable Steven D. Grimberg. 

   In amateur response, KeyBank on February 7 bragged on the for-pay CSR Wire about grants it is giving out. But how do they compare to the lending promises Key made, and broke?  Watch this site 

***

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.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Accusing Trump of Rape at Bergdorf's and Libel on The Hill E. Jean Carroll Says Not a Screamer


by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 26 – When E. Jean Carroll testified on April 26 about Donald Trump allegedly raping her in Bergdorf Goodman's in 1996, then defaming her in 2019, Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina repeatedly objected. 

  U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York  Judge Louis A. Kaplan denied most objections - and told Tacopina that his client might be subjecting himself to liability under other Federal statutes with his posts on Truth Social (and his son's tweets).

  Judge Kaplan also ruled that sexual assault ascribed to Les Moonves, and funding of this lawsuit by Linked-In co-founder Reid Hoffman, would not be allowed into evidence. 

 Inner City Press live tweeted the day's testimony, thread here

OK - Now Carroll v. Trump trial, Day 2 - Inner City Press is live tweeting the trial - now complaint about Trump post on Truth Social about Ms. Bergdorf Goodman being a "scam"

Before anonymous jury brought in, complaint about Trump's post. Judge Kaplan, to Tacopina: Your client is speaking to his "public," about things he is not supposed to speak about.

Tacopina: Ms. Kaplan's office leaked that two mock juries found liability

 Tacopina: I'm not saying Ms. Kaplan did it. Someone from that wall did it. Judge Kaplan: Could have been someone off the street who was paid to give an opinion.

Tacopina: I've read the article. Judge Kaplan: I have too. There were 37 people... Tacopina: I will speak to my client about the post today, I assure you. But they have done it too. There was a protective order that was not signed or executed. I will ask my client not to comment on the case. I don't. [He went out Pearl Street door yesterday]

 Judge Kaplan: Your client may be tampering with a new source of potential liability. And I think you know what I mean. [Contempt of court?] Judge Kaplan: Anything else? Carroll's lawyer (sounding happy) Nothing, your Honor

 First witness: Cheryl L. Beall. Carroll's lawyer: What is your current job? Beall: VP of a cosmetics company. Before that, Prada, Louis Vuitton... Carroll's lawyer: Let's focus on the spring of 1996. Where were you? Beall: Bergdorf Goodman on 57th and 5th Avenue

 Carroll's lawyer: What was your job? Beall: Manager of the women's store. Carroll's lawyer: How busy would it get on Thursday evening? Beall: Busy if we had an event. Otherwise, rather quiet.

Carroll's lawyer: On this chart, what is FR? Beall: The fitting rooms, dressing rooms. Carroll's lawyer: Where would the swimwear area be? Beall: It moved. It was a swing shop. It was seasonal.

Carroll's lawyer: Were the fitting rooms sometimes open? Beall: Yes. We wished they were. But some sales associates tied them open with ribbons. Carroll's lawyer: Could two people fit inside? Beall: Yes. People shop together.

 Carroll's lawyer: Did famous people shop there then? Beall: One of my favorites was Pierce Brosnan -- Carroll's lawyer: How were famous people treated?

Beall: They were given privacy. We didn't like hearing, I just saw this famous football guy with a 2d personCarroll's lawyer: Had you seen Donald Trump? Beall: Yes, I saw him on 57th Street.


Carroll's lawyer: Did you ever hear of Donald Trump being in Bergdorf's? Trump's lawyer: Objection! Hearsay! Judge Kaplan: Not necessarily.

Carroll's lawyer: I'll rephrase. If Donald Trump came in, would you be alerted? Beall: Not necessarily. If he was president, sure, there'd be Secret Service. Carroll's lawyer: No further questions.

 Judge Kaplan: Cross examination. Trump's lawyer: Given the proximity from the fitting room to the main area, if someone screamed, would they be heard? Beall:  If they screamed, yes. Trump's lawyer: And if someone's head- Judge Kaplan: If a tree falls in the forest

Trump's lawyer: I got my answer, Your Honor. Judge Kaplan: I know you did. But you know where I'm coming from. Trump's lawyer: Did you maintain the footage from the security cameras? Beall: Sure.  Trump's lawyer: Could a person get it? Beall: I assume so.

Trump's lawyer: Did you have guards? Beall: Security executives might take a pass through the store. Trump's lawyer: If a person had a security concern they could be approached? Judge Kaplan: Were they in uniform? Beall: At the front desk.

Trump's lawyer: Thanks

Carroll: That website uses AI to help people find a good partner. I get 200 letters a month, how to find someone to make them happy. Carroll: Let's turn to the reason you're here, what happened with Donald Trump. When did you meet him? Carroll: 1987, at SNL or ABC

 Counsel: What's in this photo? Carroll: Donald Trump, Ivana, John Johnson & me. [It's PX 12, also labeled "Confidental CARROLL 030211]

 Carroll: The conversation was about 5 minutes. He was a raconteur. Counsel: Did you find him attractive? Carroll: Yes. Personable

 Counsel: When do you believe Donald Trump assaulted you? Carroll: Going by what I was wearing, tights but no coat, I'd say Spring. Ms. Birnbach has written a story about Mr. Trump and Mar-a-Lago, a bomb shell --

Trump's lawyer: Objection!

 Counsel: Ms. Carroll, we're not going to get into the substance of the article. How did it help you remember when? Carroll: Mr. Tacopina said I referred to 1995 or 1996 -- Counsel: Just, how did the article help you remember? Carroll: Lisa Birnbach wrote it...

 Carroll: She went down to Mar-a-Lago in February 1996. I believe she would not have done down there if she'd known what Trump had done to me -- Tapopina: Objection. Judge Kaplan: I'm going to allow it.

 Carroll: I believe it was a Thursday. Counsel: You've never before said that, right? Carroll: I've always thought it. I'm not 100% certain. But I think so. Counsel: Are you sure? Carroll: I feel sure. But not 100%.

 Carroll: I lived in a cottage in Nyack. I'd feed the dogs then write the TV show. I'd drive to Fort Lee, into hair and make up. Live at 4 pm... At Bergdorf, Donald Trump asked me to help him buy a gift. I loved it - it was a great NY moment. I asked, For how old?

Carroll: Donald Trump asked, How old are you? I said 52. And he said, You are soo oooold. He was being funny. Counsel: What floor were you on? Carroll: The first floor Counsel: Did anyone recognize you? Carroll: There was a shopper. She was tiny, staring up at him

Carroll: He was petting a fur hat and he said, I know, lingerie. Counsel: You mean, underwear? Carroll: Yes. We went up to the sixth floor. Counsel: Was there anything discomforting, that Mr. Trump had proposed lingerie? Carroll: No. I thought it was a great story

 Carroll: He was talking about buying Bergdorf. Counsel: Who else did you see? Carroll: I wasn't looking.  Counsel: How did you move? Carroll: May I stand up? Counsel: Your Honor, may she? Judge Kaplan: Yes.

Carroll: There was a blue body suit. He said, Go put this on. It was see-through. They used to be called teddies. Counsel: Anyone else there? Carroll: I didn't see anyone. Bergdorf's is not busy in the evening  Counsel: Have you written before you were surprised?

Carroll: Now I find it surprising. Counsel: Did you put it on? Carroll: No. I said, You put it on. It's your color. He said, You're in shape, go put it on. Counsel: Why in the world would you think he would? Carroll: He was having a good time, and so was I.

Carroll: The door was open and I thought, OK, I saw it as an SNL sketch.  Counsel: Were you flirting with Donald Trump? Carroll: Yes. The whole time Counsel: What happened next? Carroll: He shut the door and shoved me up against the wall. I was confused. I laughed

 Carroll: I pushed him back. He thrust me back against the wall again. Counsel: Were you still laughing? Carroll: Yes. I didn't want to make a scene, or make him angry. I know that sounds strange. Counsel: What did he do? Carroll: Held me against the wall.

Carroll: He pulled down my tights. I didn't want anything else to happen. Counsel: Did you say, No? Carroll: No. I do not recall saying it. I may have said it. Counsel: Did you scream? Carroll: I'm not a screamer. I'm a fighter.

 Counsel: Would someone nearby have heard? Carroll: Yes. My head hitting. And me laughing. I was 5'9'' then, I've leveled since. I had on four inch heels. I weighed 120 then. He weighed about one hundred more pounds.

Carroll: His fingers went into my v*gina. It was extremely painful. It was a horrible feeling. He put his hand inside me and curled his finger. As I sit here today, I can still feel it. [Pause]. Then he inserted his p*nis. Counsel: What did you do?

Carroll: I...

 Counsel: We'll need a moment. Carroll: I wonder WHY I WALKED IN THERE, to get in that situation... I'm proud to say I got out of there. Counsel: Could you see what Mr. Trump was doing with his hand? Carroll: I couldn't see. Only feel the pain.

 Counsel: Were you wearing underwear? Carroll: No. To me, tights are underwear. I wouldn't wear two pairs of underwear. Counsel: Do you know if he ejaculated? Carroll: I don't think so. Counsel: Then what? Carroll: I got out of the store as quickly as I could Inne

 Counsel: How did you get out of the store? Carroll: I walked out. I took the escalator. Counsel: Were you running? Walking? Carroll: I'm guessing I was walking swiftly. Counsel: Did Mr. Trump come after you? Carroll: I was never sure if he was behind me. I rushed

 Counsel: How do you feel about your decision to go up to that dressing room? Carroll: It was very stupid. It changed... I know people have been through a lot worse than this. But it left me unable to ever have a romantic life again.


Counsel: What did you do? Carroll: I called my friend Lisa Birnbach. She wrote "The Preppy Handbook." I thought, if she thinks it's funny, I didn't do a stupid thing. Counsel: Why would Lisa Birnbach think it was funny? Carroll: I hadn't processed it. Adrenaline

 Counsel: Do you now believe any of it was funny? Carroll: No, it was tragic... I told Lisa, You're not going to believe what just happened. He pulled down my tights. She said, E. Jean, I don't think that's funny. I must have still been laughing.

Carroll: Lisa asked me, Did he insert his p*nis? I said yes and she said, He raped you. You should go to the police. I didn't go. I couldn't Counsel: Why not? Carroll: I was ashamed. I thought it was my fault. I was flirting with him, laughing, having a great time

Counsel: Then what did you do, that evening? Carroll: Walked to the garage and drove home. Counsel: That night, any physical signs of abuse? Carroll: My head hurt. My v*gina felt pain. Counsel: Did you seek medical attention? Carroll: No.

Counsel: What did you do with the dress? Carroll: I kept it. It was my best dress. I thought I might wear it again. I couldn't believe that it happened to me.

 Counsel: Did you keep a journal at this time? Carroll: When I was younger, I wrote about my emotions. After 40, about hiking and my dog. I'm very superstitious - I don't write bad things done. If I don't write it down, I don't think about it

 Counsel: What did you do the next day? Carroll: I went to work. And I thought I knew best. I didn't see a therapist. But I told Carol Martin. She was an anchorwoman at ABC. I needed a hug. I told her, I had a run-in with Donald Trump at Bergdorf's.

 Carroll: I spoke to Carol at her house. Counsel: Who else was there? Carroll: Her dog Cisco. Carol is open hearted. Her concern was, Do not go to the police. He has 200 lawyers, he'll bury you. I agreed with her. And we agreed never to talk about it. Seigel: Ms. Carroll says Les Moonves graphically sexually assaulted her on an elevator. Judge Kaplan: Page? Line? Seigel: 162 of the transcript, lines 12 through 17. Defendant's exhibit AA.

Judge Kaplan: Give me a minute. If you're talking I can't read.

Carroll's lawyer Michael Ferrara cites a 9th Circuit case. Seigel: The rule only applies when the witness had not raised the issue herself and opened the door, which has clearly happened here. She has written about this.

 Judge Kaplan: Give me a moment, fellas. What does the 9th Circuit say, Mr. Ferrara, that requires the exclusion of the Moonves incident? Ferrara: The rule excludes evidence of other sexual assaults -

 E. Jean Carroll's lawyer Ferrara: We think of it as doors. Some must remain closed, other will be opened -- Judge Kaplan: Except at Bergdorf's. Ferrara: Well played.

Trump's lawyer Seigel: They want to allow questions about the dentist, when she was a child, because it evokes sympathy, but not Moonves -- Judge Kaplan: Rape of a child is bad, but rape of a woman is not? I wouldn't want to hang my argument on that.

Judge Kaplan: I just read a scathing letter in this case the other day. You are carping. I've had enough of it. Seigel: They've opened the door. We're permitted to rebut it. Judge Kaplan: You say an incident with Moonves in 1997 also limited romance Seigel: Or sex

Ferrara: The reason we came up with the camp counselor is that -- Judge Kaplan: Forget the camp counselor. Let's stick with what we're talking about. She says, X happened and I have consequences. They say, there was also Y. Ferrara: We say Rule 412 precludes it.

Judge Kaplan: Counselor, if your expert going to attribute harm to Moonves? Trump's lawyer Seigel: He intends to. Judge Kaplan: Is it in his report? Seigel: Yes, generally. Judge Kaplan: I'll think about it over lunch.

 Carroll's lawyer Ferrara: Ms. Carroll has said her second husband John Johnson was violent with her. Not sexually. But we think the reason they fought must be excluded, under Rule 403. Tacopina: It's relevant. He got violent because she called him an ape

 Judge Kaplan: The underlying reason is not coming in, it is a subject on which the unfair prejudicial effect outrageously outweighs any probative value, to a mixed race jury in New York, it is outrageous in my opinion.  Tacopina: I've got your ruling.

Judge Kaplan: I know what you're up to. Tacopina: I'm trying to defend the case. To not hear the reason for Johnson's violence, it's not fair. Judge Kaplan: You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not mine. [Stands up to leave]


 OK, they're back. Before jury allowed in, Tacopina says he will ask about the "group of men she claims have mistreated her throughout her life." Carroll's counsel: We'll take it question by question. Jury entering!

Carroll's counsel: Do you remember the disk I showed you? Carroll: Yes. Counsel: We offer DX 112. It's a video of Roger Ailes interviewing Donald Trump, as grand marshal of a military parade. Counsel: Who is Roger Ailes?

Carroll: He started Fox News.

 Counsel: Why do you think you were then unable to form a romantic relationship? Carroll: In short, because I was raped by Donald Trump. Counsel: Why did it have that effect? Carroll: I flirted with him, and he raped me. So going forward, I didn't look at men

Carroll's counsel: I'm sorry to ask this, but have you had sex since? Carroll: No. I have a public persona, then a private self that can't admit out loud [voice breaks] that there's been any suffering. Counsel: May I approach? Tissues. Carroll: Thank you Counsel: Why didn't you speak up when he ran? Carroll: My mother was dying in Indiana. And I notice that as more women came out and accused him, his polling numbers went up. Counsel: Are you involved in politics? Carroll: I am a registered Democrat.

 Counsel: Have you ever donated to a candidate? Carroll: $1000 to President Obama. Counsel: Who have you voted for? Carroll: Obama. Clinton. Biden. Counsel: What is your view of Donald Trump? Carroll: He's vile.

Counsel: Let me show you PX 120. What is it? Carroll: The most hideous men in NYC walking tour. In 2019.

 [Tacopina says something]

Judge Kaplan: Were you addressing me? Tacopina: We're trying to resolve something without getting Your Honor involved.

 [Photo without text is now put up] Tacopina: No objection, your Honor Counsel: What was that tour?

 Carroll: They do Most Famous Gangsters walking tour, so I thought, Why not hideous men? In six blocks of 5th Avenue, we visited where well known men mistreated women Carroll: New York Magazine ran an excerpt. It hit the Internet 3 days before the hard copy magazine. June 21, 2019.  Counsel: Why not publish it in Elle? Carroll: They would not have published it. They would not publish their advice columnist admitting a mistake

 Counsel: Were you paid by New York Magazine? Carroll: No, they paid St. Martins, like $7500. Counsel: Did you send it to Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin? Carroll: Yes, as an email attachment. Neither had a problem with it. They are both writers.

 Counsel: Were you three interviewed that June? Carroll: Yes.  Counsel: Did it change your recollection of the events? Carroll: No, but I hadn't known Lisa was feeding her children when she got my call.

 Counsel: After it was published, what was the response? Carroll: I thought Donald Trump would denied, because he denies everything. Tacopina: Objection. Judge: Sustained. Counsel: Let me show you his tweet, I never met her. You see it? Carroll: Yes

 Counsel: How about this interview in The Hill, June 24, 2019, where he says "She's not my type." What do you understand that to mean? Carroll: That I'm too ugly to attack, to rape. I thought he was going to say it was consensual.  Then I started getting threats

Carroll: The letters I got as E. Jean, they turned negative. And the threats? Counsel: What was your reaction? Carroll: I deleted them.  Counsel: Did you also get support? Carroll: Yes. From all over. But the vileness about my ugliness, it swamped it out.

Carroll (voice breaking) Getting my day in court, it is everything to me. So I am happy (sobs). Counsel: Shall we take a moment? Carroll: I'll get myself together. This is my day in court. I'm not going to cry and waste everyone's time... I lost 8 million readers.

 Carroll: I've still got 19,000 readers on Substack. But Elle Magazine fired me since I accused Donald Trump. Counsel: Were you able to obtain a new job? Carroll: No. I have a Substack. For Elle once a month I got $5000. Now I churn out 3 a week for the same income

 Counsel: Have you heard of Jessica Leeds? Carroll: Yes. I interviewed her about Donald Trump assaulting her on a plane. The press tends to use words like grope. I --

Tacopina: Objection.

Judge Kaplan: To what? We'll break here, the jurors can go home. But first...

Judge Kaplan: Very important you don't read anything about this case or go online. [Jury leaves] Tacopina: She said, Other women had come forward -- Carroll's lawyer: She's covered a lot today. We aren't trying to import other allegations.

 Judge Kaplan: Remind me tomorrow

 Judge Kaplan: OK, see you tomorrow. [Judge leaves]

More here including analysis and Donziger echo on Substack here

Tacopina
                        and Judge Kaplan in Carrol v Trump courtesy
                        Elizabeth Wiliams

Court art: Tacopina and Judge Kaplan, courtesy to Inner City Press from Elizabeth Williams

***

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.

Pras Michel Found Guilty in DDC Trial Jho Low Funds and Lobbying for Miles Guo Extradition


by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Song Substack

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, April 26– Pras Michel's trial started with jury selection on March 27 on charges of working for Jho Low to lobby the Obama then Trump administrations.

He also met with China about Guo Wengui / Miles Kwok, detained last week along with his chief of staff Yvette Wang on fraud charges - Inner City Press story here, stand-up here. Jho Low book here. 

  On March 24, the business day before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia trial, Michel's lawyers put in a supplemental witness list including... Steve Bannon. List on Patreon here.  Pras Guo for Jho Low trial song here.

On April 26, a day after the jury asked about the Obama Victory Fund, Pras Michel was convicted on all counts. His lawyer David Kenner then said, " “We are of course very disappointed, but I am very confident in the ultimate outcome of this case. Her honor gave us a briefing schedule that will allow us to brief a number of motions that I made during the course of this trial. That briefing schedule extends out into July. Her honor pointed out today that after those decisions are made, based on the briefs, she will determine whether it is still necessary to move to a sentencing hearing. If we do move to a sentencing hearing, I remain very confident that we will, with certainty, appeal this case. This is not over. I remain very, very confident that we will ultimately prevail in this matter....I filed motions for mistrial and other motions during the course of the trial. It is Her Honor’s practice take those under submission and to rule on them after all of the evidence is in. I remain enormously confident that this case is not over and that we will ultimately prevail.”

Back on the eve of jury selection, Michel filed his list of 216 exhibits, including "77 Elliot Broidy WhatsApp Message, Interview of Steve Wynn 8/31/2020; Proffer of Pakazrel “Pras” Michel; Email Pollack to Pras re: pre-indictment resolution." Full list on Patreon here.

  Inner City Press live tweeted the Michel trial opening, and first witnesses. On Sunday April 9 Michel filed this: "the defense requests that the prosecution grant statutory immunity to Mr. White or, in the alternative, agree to dismiss the election law counts against Mr. Michel if the denial of statutory immunity is more important to the government than getting a conviction on the election law counts" Filing on Patreon here.

On April 18, first Jeff Sessions (whom the CCP wanted to lobby to extradite Miles Guo Wengui) then Pras Michel himself took the stand. Michel claimed that the Jho Low funds were for a photo with Obama, not campaign contributions. He admitted his work on trying to get Miles Guo Wengui extradited - while Sessions said he could not remember Guo’s name "had it not been refreshed to me."

More on Substack here

 Meanwhile, "the Court more formally DENIES Defendant's April 18, 2023 oral motion for a mistrial.  Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on April 18, 2023."

 Watch this site.

***

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.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Guilty Verdict in Trial for Murder In Washington Heights in 2006 After Cooperators Testify

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon

SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 26 – Edwin Cortorreal is charged with murdering Kelly Diaz in an apartment in Washington Height on October 27, 2006. On April 17, 2023, his trial began. Inner City Press was there.

 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Valerie E. Caproni is presiding over the trial, 9:30 am to 5 pm, she said. From Day 1:

OK - now murder trial US v Cortorreal for allegedly killing Kelly Diaz, and RICO. Many prosecutors here for opening arguments.

AUSA: Cortorreal shot Mr Kelly Diaz in the face. You will hear from 3 cooperators. They robbed people too. 2 pled guilty to murder, the murder of Kelly Diaz.

Defense lawyer: My client pled guilty to robberies. He served his time and was deported. He was brought back to face this murder charge. You'll hear from a childhood friend of Diaz who set him up, then got a cooperator's deal

 As soon as openings are over, 8 prosecutors leave the courtroom. First witness is Ms Jamel Duran, 39, Kelly Diaz's wife. His photo in a red turtleneck sweater is received in evidence.

Jamel Duran testifies that Kelly Diaz before being shot yelled something - in English, she did not understand it. Nor did she see the face of the shooter.

Next witness is in MDC beige and leg irons, Albert Bonilla a/k/a Alski & Biggie. Jailed 5 years so far.

Bonilla: Crazy Ed [Cortorreal] did the murder. He used to buy weed from me on 181st Street.

  After the trial day, Inner City Press checked the docket. For Albert Bonilla, it is dozens of "SEALED DOCUMENT place in the vault" entries, with former AUSA asking off the case.

On Apri 18 a second cooperator was on the stand, Medina. He has been detained almost six years, in the MCC and MDC. In the former, he admits to using illegal cell phones. The defense emphasized that he hadn't disclosed his early cell phone use, nor a stabbing at a movie theater, to the prosecution. On re-direct he testified he only called his mother and his girlfriend, and had not been the one doing the stabbing.
 
 But hadn't Medina pled guilty to "Crazy Ed's" shooting of Kelly Diaz, for being part of the group or conspiracy? The point may have been lost on the jury.

On April 19, yet another cooperator, this one dressed in the yellow prison jumpsuit of the Essex County Correctional Facility. He repeated most questions back, with a question mark, then asked for them to be repeated. Did he remember, while on supervised release, robbing a body shop? A body shop? Maybe a mechanics shop with a travel agency inside it.

 Then NYC's Chief Medical Examiner Jason Grimm, who did Kelly Diaz' autopsy in 2006: he was shot through the hand and brain, by a bullet with no metal jacket. There was no cross examination.

On April 24 another medical witness for the government, testifying about DNA. But she admitted a clerical error with the alleles, and showed a report of correction. Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Apparently yes. On April 26: "EDWIN CORTORREAL, a/k/a “Crazy Ed,” was found guilty of all three counts at trial, including conspiracy to commit racketeering and two counts for robbing and murdering Kelly Diaz in 2006 in Washington Heights.  The verdict followed a five-day trial before U.S. District Judge Valerie E. Caproni."

The case is US v. Nunez, et al., 17-cr-438 (Caproni)

***

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.

sdny

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com