Lawyers for Charlie Javice on Friday moved for a mistrial in her fraud case.
Defense argued her right to a fair trial was “compromised” after opening statements were shortened.
Prosecutors allege Javice defrauded JPMorgan Chase before it bought her student aid startup, Frank.
Lawyers for Charlie Javice on Friday moved for a mistrial in the fraud case against her, arguing her right to a fair trial had been “irreparably compromised.”
Her lawyers argued that Javice’s right to a fair trial was compromised when the judge unexpectedly ordered her defense counsel’s opening statement to be shortened, which they called a violation of her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
“Our motion for a mistrial was based on the fundamental principle that Ms. Javice has a constitutional right to a fair trial, which includes adequate time for her counsel to present a full and complete opening statement,” a representative for Javice’s legal team told Business Insider. “The abrupt and unexplained reduction in our time significantly hindered our ability to provide the jury with a clear and comprehensive presentation of the facts and legal arguments central to this case.”
In addition to having the defense’s opening statement cut short, Javice’s lawyers argue that the court misstated jury instructions regarding the elements of wire fraud, which prejudiced them against the defendant.
The court told the jury that, in order to convict on the wire and bank fraud charges facing Javice, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Javice made intentional false and misleading statements with the intention to deceive, her lawyers say.
However, her lawyers argued in their motion for a mistrial that the court did not adequately inform the jury panel about a key element of the law, which requires the government to prove any false statements amounted to material misrepresentations — a higher legal standard requiring the prosecutors to prove a reasonable person would have been convinced to act due to the false claims and that the false claims were relied on when deciding to enter the deal.
“To guarantee Ms. Javice’s Fifth Amendment rights, a mistrial is the only appropriate remedy,” the motion from Javice’s attorneys says.
The mistrial motion stems from the trial’s opening statements, which began Thursday in the fraud case against Javice and her Olivier Amar, who prosecutors say defrauded JPMorgan Chase before it bought the student aid startup.
Javice and Amar are charged with bank fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud after prosecutors say they exaggerated the customer base of their student loan-focused fintech startup in an effort to trick the bank into buying it.
