Guest View
Frank Report’s story Conflict of Interest Bombshell: Judge Invested in Ozy’s Victim Companies broke the news that super-wealthy US District Judge Eric Komitee was invested in Google, Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase through hedge funds, while he presided over the Carlos Watson criminal trial where the prosecution alleged Google, Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase were victims. Here is a guest view submitted by an attorney who monitored the trial and has deep concerns about this news-making conflict.
Guest View
By An Attorney Interested in Due Process
In the United States, our justice system is built on trust—trust that those who preside over our courts are impartial and free of any interest that could sway their judgment. When that trust is broken, justice cannot prevail. In the case of Carlos Watson and OZY Media, Judge Eric Komitee’s deep financial ties to companies directly tied to the prosecution’s case question the legitimacy of the verdict. The appropriate response here is not just a new trial, but dismissal of the case.
At issue is more than an incidental or theoretical link between the presiding judge and entities involved in the trial. Judge Komitee holds multimillion-dollar interests in hedge funds, with substantial investments in Goldman Sachs, Alphabet (Google), JP Morgan Chase, and Live Nation—four companies that played central roles in the government’s case against Watson and OZY. This is not a trivial association; it’s a clear conflict of interest that casts doubt on the fairness of the entire proceeding.
Komitee’s Financial Connections Run Deep
Judge Komitee’s financial entanglements are compounded by his close ties to Viking Global, one of the hedge funds managing these investments. For years, he served as Viking’s general counsel, and continues to sit on a Viking-affiliated foundation’s board with Viking executives. Such extensive connections are far from innocuous; they suggest an ongoing allegiance to the financial interests that now sit at the heart of the prosecution’s narrative.
This is not merely a matter of perception—though even the appearance of bias alone should be sufficient to warrant recusal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge must step aside from any case where impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” But here, Judge Komitee’s connections transcend appearance; they are a substantial, direct, and continuous financial interest in entities integral to the case. When a judge has millions invested in companies testifying as alleged victims, that is not a question of “might reasonably”—it is an undeniable conflict.
Ignoring Calls for Recusal Fuels Distrust
And yet, Judge Komitee not only presided over the trial, but has also resisted calls to recuse himself. His ongoing role risks deepening public cynicism about whether our judiciary can be trusted to uphold fairness and impartiality. This case, and Judge Komitee’s role in it, epitomizes how compromised justice can become when judges fail to recognize that the mere perception of bias undermines public trust in the judiciary.
A New Trial Won’t Undo the Damage
Some might argue that a new trial is the solution, but that doesn’t go far enough. The damage done by allowing this conflict to persist throughout the trial is irreversible. The only just course of action is dismissal of the indictment. Allowing the government to retry Watson and OZY would mean the public, and the defendants, must place their faith in a system that has already proven compromised in this instance.
Dismissal: The Only Fitting Response
Dismissal would not be an extreme remedy; it would be the only remedy fitting the severity of the violation. A conviction under these circumstances cannot stand, because it is a miscarriage of justice, a testament to how financial entanglements can infect even the highest echelons of our court system.
This case demands more than just a second chance in court. It demands an unequivocal response to protect the integrity of the justice system itself. Judge Komitee’s actions—his decision to preside over a trial involving his own significant financial interests—require accountability and a clear message: justice cannot serve conflicting interests.
In my years as an attorney, I have seen firsthand that the judiciary’s strength lies in the public’s faith that we are truly neutral arbiters. When that faith is betrayed, as it has been here, we must take bold steps to restore it. For the sake of an untainted judiciary and the fair application of justice, the case against Carlos Watson and OZY must be dismissed.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
It will work out in the end, a smile, wink, head nod, everyone will leave happy.
Not once has Parlato told the truth. Not. One. Time. Frankie is McGinnis
Our country being “just” is merely an illusion. We are not run for or by the people.
Dismissal is the only “just” option but that’s why the government will do everything to avoid doing what is right.
And you think Frankie’s saving the day? He’s a coward hiding behind his pen
Has the great Gary Cohen ever appeared in front of this judge?
He should be able to handle a case where he invests in the victims. The judge will know the company better and understand the issues.
“This case, and Judge Komitee’s role in it, epitomizes how compromised justice can become when judges fail to recognize that the mere perception of bias undermines public trust in the judiciary.”
True enough. The issue is the judges above Komitee are often complicit as well. Realistically, do you believe Komitee will recuse? As if he hadn’t known all along of the conflict? He’s already destroyed a company and severely harmed the lives of many. Recusing at this point will mean Komitee is taking ownership of wrongdoing which is never going to happen. He’ll deny it to the end.
If a higher court finds he should have recused, then he’ll get a slap on the wrist if anything at all. But he’s not owning any of it.
We’ve given judges far too much credit and power. A system where judges are to keep each other in line is a fools errand.
Judge Komitee has no ethics or he would have stepped aside long ago. His arrogance will be his achilles heel. Conflict this tangible can’t be ignored. Back doors deals to save face likely going on.