As the trial of Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar progresses, the defense continued to push back against the government’s allegations on March 18, 2025. The day’s testimony and legal motions highlighted critical disputes over JPMorgan’s due diligence process before acquiring Frank, the college financial aid startup Javice founded. The courtroom atmosphere was tense, with Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein frequently intervening in the heated exchanges between the defense attorneys and the prosecution.
Witness Testimonies and Cross-Examinations
One of the key witnesses on the stand was Keona Drakeford, a JPMorgan employee involved in handling the data provided by Frank. Under cross-examination by defense attorney Ronald Sullivan, Drakeford was pressed about the origins of the data she received. The defense sought to establish that the data came through JPMorgan’s internal channels, rather than directly from Javice or Amar. The exchange became contentious as Sullivan repeatedly questioned whether JPMorgan had internally verified the authenticity of the data before moving forward with its claims of fraud.
Another witness, Michael Salve, provided testimony outside the presence of the jury regarding the handling of data files within JPMorgan. Prosecutor Micah Fergenson argued that internal communications showed the defendants knowingly shared files that misrepresented Frank’s user base. However, defense attorney Sean Buckley challenged the validity of these files, arguing that the government could not conclusively prove they were the same files used during the acquisition process.
Judge Hellerstein allowed the government’s questioning to proceed but repeatedly urged both sides to focus on the direct elements of the case, cautioning against extensive speculation on JPMorgan’s internal processes.
Legal Motions and Judicial Rulings
The defense submitted a motion for a curative instruction regarding the government’s burden of proof, asserting that previous courtroom discussions had potentially misled the jury about the requirement to prove each element of bank fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Hellerstein denied the motion, ruling that the jury would receive appropriate instructions at the end of the trial and that no undue influence had occurred.
Additionally, the government moved to admit a series of WhatsApp messages as evidence. The defense objected, questioning the reliability and relevance of the messages. Judge Hellerstein deferred a final ruling, stating that he would need to review the messages in context before making a determination on their admissibility.
The government also sought to introduce summary charts prepared by witness Rachel Danko. The defense opposed the motion, arguing that the charts improperly juxtaposed different pieces of evidence to suggest an inference of fraud rather than letting the jury draw its own conclusions. Judge Hellerstein ruled against the government, stating that such analysis should be reserved for closing arguments rather than introduced as testimony.
The Courtroom’s Tense Atmosphere
The day’s proceedings were marked by frequent interjections from Judge Hellerstein as both sides clashed over the framing of evidence. At one point, when defense attorney José Baez sought clarification on whether the defense would need to present its case immediately after the government rested, Hellerstein firmly stated, “You will have to make up your mind by tomorrow.”
The prosecution, led by Georgia Kostopoulos, argued that the case was straightforward: the defendants knowingly misrepresented user numbers to JPMorgan. The defense, however, continued to hammer at the notion that JPMorgan executives were never actually concerned about the precise number of users when finalizing the acquisition. In their view, the bank’s post-acquisition concerns emerged only when regulatory scrutiny increased.
With the government’s case expected to conclude the following day, the defense faced a pivotal decision on whether to present its own witnesses. Judge Hellerstein made clear that any defense case would need to proceed without delay, indicating that motions and testimony must be wrapped up by the end of the week.
As arguments continue, the central question remains: Was JPMorgan truly deceived, or did it willingly ignore potential issues with Frank’s user base until it became a liability? The upcoming days of testimony and legal arguments will be crucial in shaping the jury’s perspective on whether this was a case of fraud—or a corporate miscalculation that turned into a courtroom battle.
The post Javice Trial: Defense Presses JPMorgan’s Due Diligence in Heated Cross-Examinations appeared first on ARTVOICE.