Michael Avenatti announced that he would not testify in court during his forthcoming Nike extortion trial.
U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe denied a motion made by Avenatti’s lawyers on Monday, which asked the court to prohibit the cross-examination of his financial condition. The motion, if accepted, would have barred questions pertaining to Avenatti’s search history and web results, including “insider trading” and “Nike put options,” and his other alleged crimes, such as the extortion of his former client, adult film star Stormy Daniels.
“Mr. Avenatti offers no basis to preclude financial evidence,” Judge Gardephe said, before adding, “Evidence of a desperate financial condition … is relevant to his motive.”
According to him, previous alleged instances of “lies and deceit” are relevant to the case. However, the judge did say he would not allow references to “pending criminal cases” or spousal and child support. Gardephe then asked if Avenatti planned to take the stand, to which he responded in the negative.
Avenatti, 48, was charged by prosecutors last year for attempting to extort between $15 million and $22.5 million from Nike. He was additionally charged with stealing $300,000 from Daniels. Though Avenatti faces mounting legal battles, he has denied the allegations.
“I want to thank all of my supporters for your kind words and support today. It means a lot to me. I am anxious for people to see what really happened. We never attempted to extort Nike & when the evidence is disclosed, the public will learn the truth about Nike’s crime & coverup,” he said in May.
The attorney has also claimed that he was being targeted with a “vindictive” prosecution because of his former challenges to President Trump. However, Gardephe objected to the claim, finding no malicious intent to indict the lawyer.
“Avenatti is being prosecuted for activities wholly unrelated to the political arena,” the judge wrote in January.
Avenatti was arrested by federal agents during a disciplinary hearing in mid-January, during which the California State Bar argued that he posed a “threat of substantial harm to the public” as a lawyer and asked a judge to forbid him from further practice.
