In a tense and consequential day in federal court, the high-profile fraud trial of Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar took a sharp turn Tuesday, as legal teams battled over how and when the case will wrap. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein heard hours of unexciting heated arguments about closing schedules, civil lawsuit implications, and key pieces of evidence—ultimately issuing rulings that could shape the verdict.
The day opened with a prolonged debate over how to handle closing arguments, and the day ended its longest run yet, with proceedings ending close to 8PM. Amar’s attorney, Matthew Menchel, urged the court to split the summations over two days, citing jury fatigue and fairness. “Standing up after four hours of closings… I’m worried that the jury’s attention just can’t absorb all that information,” Menchel said.
The government, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Micah Fergenson, aligned with Javice’s team in pushing for a single-day schedule to keep the case moving. “We think it’s fair and helps move the case forward,” Fergenson argued.
Judge Hellerstein sided with the government and Javice’s camp, affirming a full-day schedule: two hours for the government in the morning, followed by Javice and Amar’s closings in the afternoon, and a rebuttal the following morning. “I think the one-day plan is the best in the circumstance,” the judge said, acknowledging no option would satisfy everyone.
Defense Motion to Introduce JPMorgan Civil Lawsuit Denied
In a key motion, Amar’s defense asked the court to take judicial notice of JPMorgan Chase’s pending civil suit against both defendants—arguing that it was relevant to assess the credibility of JPMorgan witnesses.
Judge Hellerstein rejected the motion, calling it too risky and potentially misleading. “To what extent does that make it impeachable material?” the judge asked rhetorically. “I conclude it is more danger of risk and digression and misleading material and so I exclude, in my discretion, mention of the civil lawsuit.”
The ruling was, as has almost regulary been, a win for the government, who had vigorously opposed the motion.
Defense Loses Attempt to Identify “Michael” in Key Text
Another defense effort to pin down the identity of “Michael” in a crucial text message—asserting it referred to board member Michael Eisenberg—was also shot down. The government refused to stipulate, and Judge Hellerstein declined to amend the evidence or take judicial notice. “It’s not a subject of judicial notice,” the judge ruled. “You can argue that it has to be Michael Eisenberg.”
Google Analytics Evidence Admitted—With Limits
Amar’s team earned a partial victory on evidence when they pushed to admit a March 2021 Google Analytics screenshot showing Frank had over 4.3 million users. The government objected, citing more reliable data already on record.
Judge Hellerstein allowed the exhibit—but only in redacted form, showing just the user number, column header, and date. He insisted the jury be shielded from anything that could confuse or mislead. The decision was a strategic win for Amar, giving jurors a concrete visual to bolster claims of user legitimacy.
Jen Wong Testimony Enters the Record
In another significant ruling, the court permitted the defense to read a portion of testimony from Jen Wong, a former Frank employee, taken outside the presence of the jury weeks earlier. In the segment, Wong says she never heard Amar suggest creating fake data—directly countering the testimony of prosecution witness Patrick Vovor.
Though the government objected, calling it “cherry-picking,” Judge Hellerstein allowed the read-in. “That may be read to the jury,” he said, reinforcing the importance of fair rebuttal.
Judge Hellerstein, Measured and unmoved
Throughout the proceedings, Judge Hellerstein tried to cut through repetitive arguments, dismissed weak objections, and reminded counsel of courtroom boundaries. “Everything is important,” he said at one point, brushing off attempts to re-litigate settled points.
Many of his rulings favored the government and left the defense facing an uphill battle in the final days.
With closings now set for a single marathon Wednesday and the jury charge to follow, the trial nears its end. Both legal teams are preparing to make their final pitch, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. For Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar, the jury’s verdict may hinge not just on evidence—but on the impressions left in these final courtroom moments.
The post Judge Sets One-Day Closing in Javice Trial as Sides Clash Over Fairness and Evidence appeared first on ARTVOICE.