During the Thursday, February 27, 2025, hearing, Charlie Javice‘s defense attorney José Baez repeatedly found himself at odds with the presiding judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, while attempting to cross-examine a very well prepared Leslie Wims Morris, JPMorgan’s then Vice President for Corporate Development and M&A. During the hearing, the judge frequently interrupted Baez’s questioning, directed him to move forward without full context, and, at times, interjected with questions of his own. This pattern raises concerns about judicial neutrality and whether it impacted the defense’s ability to present its case effectively.
One recurring theme throughout Baez’s cross-examination was the judge’s insistence that he “just go to the question” instead of setting up a foundation. For instance, when Baez was inquiring about the intricacies of FAFSA application data, the judge interjected:
Judge Hellerstein: “Go to your next question. What are you getting to?”
Baez: “I am, Judge.”
Judge Hellerstein: “Just go to the question that’s relevant”.
This repeated intervention limited Baez’s ability to methodically build a foundation for his arguments. Setting up questions, particularly in complex financial cases, is crucial to ensuring that the jury fully understands the implications of the witness’s testimony.
At various points, the judge went beyond mere moderation and actively took control of the questioning. For instance, when Baez questioned the witness regarding internal documents from JPMorgan Chase, the judge cut in:
Judge Hellerstein: “It was intended that way.”
Baez: “That’s what the intent was—”
Judge Hellerstein: “Next question”.
In another moment, when Baez sought to challenge the prosecution’s foundation on key evidence, the judge quickly shut him down:
Judge: “So ask a specific question that is meaningful”.
Rather than allowing the attorney to clarify issues himself, the judge imposed restrictions that seemingly constrained Baez’s ability to properly challenge the witness’s statements.
One particularly tense moment occurred when Baez was laying the foundation for a line of questioning regarding key employees and the strategic valuation of Frank, the company at the center of the case. Baez attempted to establish context by asking about specific discussions within JPMorgan Chase, but the judge intervened:
Judge Hellerstein: “What are you asking the witness?”
Baez: “I would like to ask her questions about that.”
Judge Hellerstein: “So ask a specific question”.
Such interruptions suggest an impatience with Baez’s approach, despite his responsibility to ensure a complete and thorough defense for his client.
Implications for the Case
Judicial neutrality is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial. While judges have the authority to manage proceedings efficiently, repeated interventions of this nature may contribute to an appearance of bias. By limiting Baez’s ability to present his case as he saw fit, the judge may have inadvertently impacted the jury’s perception of the evidence and witnesses.
As this case continues, the role of judicial oversight in managing attorneys’ questioning will likely remain a focal point for scrutiny. If these interruptions persist, they could form the basis for potential appeals or claims of procedural unfairness.
The post Judicial Interference? Judge’s Frequent Interruptions Hinder Baez’s Cross-Examination appeared first on ARTVOICE.