“I don’t want to end up in an orange jumpsuit.” Those words, allegedly spoken by Charlie Javice, were repeated in court today as the prosecution continued to build its case against the embattled fintech entrepreneur. But as the trial unfolds, her defense team is fighting an uphill battle—repeatedly blocked by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who has sustained objection after objection, limiting their ability to introduce key evidence.
At the heart of United States v. Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar is JPMorgan Chase’s claim that it was defrauded into acquiring Frank, a college financial aid startup, for $175 million based on allegedly inflated user numbers. The prosecution has framed Javice as a tech founder who lied to secure a lucrative deal. The defense, however, argues that JPMorgan conducted rushed, flawed due diligence and is now using Javice as a scapegoat.
Yet in today’s proceedings, the jury saw only one side of the story.
Judge Repeatedly Sides with Prosecution on Evidence Admission
From the outset, Judge Hellerstein tightly controlled the courtroom, frequently cutting off defense efforts to introduce documents and challenge the prosecution’s case. One of the most significant clashes occurred when defense attorney Patrick Korody attempted to question Sarah Youngwood, JPMorgan’s former Chief Financial Officer for Consumer Banking, about an internal email discussing concerns over the Frank acquisition.
Korody asked if the email refreshed Youngwood’s memory about JPMorgan’s internal doubts. However, she responded, “I don’t recall specifically.” The prosecution objected immediately, and Judge Hellerstein sustained the objection, preventing the defense from exploring the document further.
A similar moment came when the defense sought to introduce minutes from a critical deal review meeting, where JPMorgan executives allegedly discussed their own due diligence failures. Judge Hellerstein initially questioned the document’s foundation and ultimately reminded the jury that Youngwood did not recall reviewing it personally—effectively diluting its impact before it was even considered.
Defense Argues JPMorgan’s Due Diligence Was Superficial
Javice’s legal team has argued that JPMorgan was not deceived—rather, it failed to conduct proper due diligence before purchasing Frank.
During cross-examination, Korody pressed Youngwood on whether JPMorgan had actually verified Frank’s user numbers or if it had simply counted rows in a data file without confirming that the users were real. The defense argued that JPMorgan declined an offer from Acxiom, a third-party firm, to fully validate the data, but when Korody pursued this line of questioning, Judge Hellerstein cut him off.
“Were you aware that all Acxiom was asked to do by JPMorgan was count the number of rows in the data file?” Korody asked.
Youngwood responded, “Rows can be very important if they would present the number of times that a customer actually fills a field.”
But when the defense attempted to present evidence that JPMorgan rejected a more thorough validation process, the prosecution objected—and once again, the judge sustained the objection before the jury could hear more details.
Judge Blocks Key Evidence on Frank’s User Base
One of the most pivotal moments of the day came when the defense sought to introduce an internal JPMorgan email that reportedly raised concerns about the true number of Frank’s engaged users.
Prosecutors objected, arguing that the document was hearsay. Despite the defense’s insistence that it was directly relevant to the bank’s knowledge at the time of acquisition, Judge Hellerstein ruled in favor of the prosecution, keeping the email out of the jury’s view.
Korody objected but was quickly overruled. “She said she doesn’t remember the email, so there’s no reason to question her on it,” Hellerstein ruled.
Later, when the defense tried to establish that JPMorgan had planned to do nothing with Frank’s user base for six months post-acquisition, the prosecution objected. This time, the judge allowed the question, but clarified that the “parking” of Frank referred to technology, not users, thereby downplaying the defense’s argument.
As the prosecution continued its case, one witness testified that Javice had expressed concerns about legal trouble, allegedly saying:
“I don’t want to end up in an orange jumpsuit.”
The statement was meant to bolster the government’s theory that Javice knew her actions were illegal. But the defense argued that it was an offhand remark, not an admission of guilt.
A Stacked Deck?
From an observer’s perspective, today’s hearing favored the prosecution at nearly every turn. While the government was allowed to present its case with minimal interference, the defense repeatedly struggled to introduce counter-evidence. Even when certain documents were admitted, the judge consistently limited their impact by emphasizing witness memory lapses or questioning their relevance.
For Javice, who once commanded boardrooms as a rising star in fintech, the stakes couldn’t be higher. While she has not been convicted of any crime, and remains far from actually wearing an orange jumpsuit, her defense team must find new ways to present its case before the jury is left with only the government’s version of events.
What’s Next?
With the prosecution maintaining strict control over the courtroom narrative, the defense will need a major shift in strategy to make its case effectively. If Judge Hellerstein continues limiting their ability to introduce key evidence, the jury may never get to hear the full story.
As the trial progresses, the central question remains: Did Charlie Javice commit fraud, or is she the fall person for a bank that failed to protect itself? For now, her future remains uncertain—but it is clear she is fighting against a system that seems determined to put her in that jumpsuit she once feared.
Charlie Javice Javice is represented by lead attorneys Jose Baez and Rosemarie Peoples of the Baez Law Firm, and Ronald Sullivan and Richard DeMaria of Ronald Sullivan PLLC. Additionally, Erica Perdomo, Sara Clark, Kirsten Nelson and Christopher Tayback of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, David Siegal, Ellen Shapiro and Eóin Beirne of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC.
The post Defense Struggles to Introduce Evidence as Judge Limits Scope in Javice Trial appeared first on ARTVOICE.