Javice Defense Cries Foul as Judge Blocks Key Evidence, Suggesting JPMorgan’s Failures ‘Weren’t the Issue’

In the latest turn of the high-stakes federal fraud trial of Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar, Federal Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein spent much of Monday’s session rejecting defense efforts to introduce evidence challenging the prosecution’s narrative — a pattern that defense attorneys now argue threatens their ability to mount a fair defense.

With the jury out of the room, the defense pressed the court to allow multiple exhibits intended to show that JPMorgan Chase may not have been deceived by alleged misrepresentations — and may not have even considered the data at issue all that important. But Judge Hellerstein wasn’t persuaded, repeatedly ruling the evidence irrelevant or too prejudicial.

In fact, at one point, when defense counsel Eoin Beirne questioned why JPMorgan would be misled by public user data clearly available on Frank’s website, Judge Hellerstein remarked, “It may not make sense, but it’s what was happening.”

That line — seemingly offhand — is quickly becoming a lightning rod for criticism. Legal analysts and defense observers argue it reveals a problematic undercurrent: that the judge may have made up his mind about the facts and is now shaping which version of the story the jury is allowed to hear.

“That kind of comment risks stepping outside the judge’s role as a neutral arbiter,” said one legal observer. “If he’s already decided what was ‘happening,’ how can the defense get a fair shake when trying to show a different version?”

That concern deepened following a motion submitted on March 23 by Javice’s legal team, seeking to admit internal JPMorgan emails that, according to the defense, shed light on how JPMorgan’s own integration team handled the Frank acquisition.

One email was sent by JPMorgan executive Ryan MacDonald to senior leadership involved in Frank’s rollout; the other came from Jennifer Roberts, another key JPMorgan staff. Both emails, the defense argued, show JPMorgan’s internal struggles with the integration, showing that JPMorgan ruined Frank and devalued it, in turn, and that offered an alternative explanation for why the acquisition unraveled — explanations that don’t involve fraud.

Yet in earlier trial sessions Judge Hellerstein blocked the defense from even questioning MacDonald about the documents. At that time, the judge warned defense counsel that any attempt to explore JPMorgan’s post-acquisition failings would result in an immediate end to their cross-examination.

The defense called the exclusion of these documents a direct violation of Javice’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights — particularly given that the government itself had been allowed to question witnesses about post-acquisition issues.

“The Court has systematically precluded Ms. Javice from eliciting testimony and offering documents related to the post-acquisition integration and ultimate shutdown of Frank,” the defense wrote. “This evidence is relevant to the bias of JPMC’s witnesses and to defending against other post-acquisition testimony the Government has been permitted to elicit.”

Toland Testimony Shows JPMorgan Apathy

Despite the cascade of evidentiary roadblocks, the defense managed to land a significant moment with testimony from Matthew Toland, a senior executive at data processing firm Acxiom. Toland testified that after Frank’s data was sent for validation in August 2021, he offered JPMorgan the option to run more advanced checks — but never received a response.

“There was no reply back to the email,” Toland said, referring to his offer to do more thorough validation. Judge Hellerstein allowed this testimony, perhaps because it clearly aligned with the case’s limited scope.

Still, it stood in stark contrast to the broad blocks placed on other evidence that could show JPMorgan’s lack of diligence — or possible buyer’s remorse.

As the defense prepares to rest its case, a new narrative is taking shape: that the trial is being steered not just by law, but by the judge’s interpretation of what did or did not happen — even before the jury delivers its verdict.

While Judge Hellerstein has repeatedly instructed jurors that the burden of proof rests with the government and that the defendants are presumed innocent, his rulings and remarks are giving critics pause.

“Whether intentional or not, the judge is effectively narrowing this case to the government’s theory — and sidelining any evidence that might complicate it,” said a source following the defense. “That’s not just aggressive judicial management. That’s storytelling.”

With only days left in the trial, and the government’s case now officially rested, all eyes are on whether the jury will be permitted to hear the full scope of the story — or only the chapters the court allows.