IF THE GLOVES FIT, YOU MUST RIDICULE IT
Assistant
U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District typically have a five-year run,
at which point they jump to prestigious criminal-defense law firms. Not
so the 37-year-old Schwartz, who became the lead investigative
prosecutor of the Madoff Five case. He’s spent nearly twice that amount
of time honing his skills there, on cases such as the JP. Morgan
Chase/Madoff anti-money laundering prosecution and a lengthy tug-of-war
with Madoff customer Jeffry Picower’s estate. He’s a graduate of
Columbia Law School, which is typically ranked among the top five law
colleges in the U.S. He also clerked for two top judges, including late
Connecticut governor Thomas (“Tough Tommy”) Meskill, who was known for
rarely walking away from a good fight.
Throughout this trial, Matt himself was a buttoned-up assassin in the courtroom
|
Madoff 5 defense table |
|
AUSA Matthew Schwartz during opening statements |
THE BENTLEY TAKES THE STAND
As stated before, the government’s main witness in the case was Frank
DiPascali, Madoff’s right hand, who joined the company in 1975. If the
jury needed a lifeline in this complex and interminable case, Frankie
was it, as he fingered each of the defendants. If the jury believed he
was telling the truth, they’d convict all five, perhaps quickly. If they
thought he was a liar, as the defense went to great pains to try and
show, then they might be deliberating a very long time. The five jurors I
interviewed all say they found him credible, although Judge Swain—more
on this below—had some problems believing him.
|
Larry Krantz cross examining Frank DiPascali |
|
ACTION JACKSON KILLS IT
The most exciting part of most wars is the climax. So it was with the
closing rebuttal by the third prosecutor, Randall Jackson, who
colleagues have aptly nicknamed “Action Jackson.” Like an elephant with a
propensity for china shops, he rampaged through his summation—sometimes
upsetting the judge, and almost always infuriating defense lawyers, who
rose and objected 42 times, which is about 40 times more than
what is typical in a federal criminal case rebuttal. When it was all
over, the courtroom had the pleasant atmosphere of a stalled subway
train.
|
AUSA Randall Jackson cross examines Daniel Bonventre |
No comments:
Post a Comment