On a recent Friday, an appellate court reviewed the decision to uphold the conviction and four-year sentence of well-known attorney Michael Avenatti, found guilty of defrauding Stormy Daniels, a high-profile adult film star.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, during verbal presentations, revealed an understanding of both Avenatti’s defense and the government prosecutor’s viewpoints regarding potential juror influence by the trial judge, which might have led to Avenatti being found guilty.
In February 2022, Avenatti faced charges of wire fraud and identity theft for allegedly diverting almost $300,000 from Daniels’ book deal earnings by forging her signature on a letter to her literary representative.
Daniels, who received $130,000 shortly before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election to remain silent about her claimed sexual liaison with Donald Trump a decade earlier, was central to this case. Trump, victorious in the election, has consistently denied the encounter. He is currently dealing with legal issues connected to the payment. Daniels is otherwise known as Stephanie Clifford.
At the appeal hearing, Avenatti’s attorney, Kendra Hutchinson, argued that trial judge Jesse Furman inappropriately focused on legal ethics in his instructions to the jury, implying that Avenatti’s ethical breaches warranted his fraud conviction. She also criticized Furman for pressuring a hesitant juror in open court to reconsider her stance, following a note indicating the juror’s reluctance to evaluate evidence.
Hutchinson expressed that the public nature of this juror’s rebuke should have led to a mistrial declaration. However, Circuit Judge Steven Menashi questioned this assertion, suggesting that it implies any juror-specific note would necessitate a mistrial.
Conversely, Circuit Judge Eunice Lee noted a distinction when a judge implies that jurors should report non-compliance among themselves. The court did not indicate when a decision on the appeal would be made.
Avenatti gained notoriety representing Daniels in her lawsuit against Trump regarding a nondisclosure agreement she believed was invalid. He also frequently opposed Trump in the media and on social media platforms like Twitter, now known as X.
Judge Furman allowed Avenatti’s four-year sentence to overlap with a previous 2-1/2-year sentence from a February 2020 conviction for attempting to extort Nike, resulting in a cumulative five-year term.
Avenatti is currently serving 19 years in prison, including an additional 14 years following his June 2022 guilty plea for defrauding four other clients of substantial amounts of money.
He is contesting this sentence. In August of the previous year, the 2nd Circuit dismissed his appeal regarding the Nike case.
The ongoing legal matter is registered under U.S. v. Avenatti, in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with case numbers 22-1242 and 22-2550.
