David T. Robinson, Duke Expert, Slams Judge Komitee’s Conduct During Watson Trial

Frank Report anticipates it will have a daily story about the man threatening the judiciary’s integrity, who is on the low road of giving it an irretrievable blemish – US District Judge Eric Komitee. Once you examine the evidence, you will learn two things. Komitee displayed an extraordinary bias during the trial of Carlos Watson and had an incredible conflict that required his recusal. He had extremely close relationships with two of Watson’s alleged victims – Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan Chase. In other stories, we have scratched the surface of that relationship. In the coming stories, we will detail it further, just as we will detail how Komitee behaved during the Watson trial.

Perhaps it would not be enough to allege Komitee had improper financial relationships with the victims of a trial he presided over, if he acted impeccably during the trial. But as we shall see, his conduct during the trial was reprehensible. He did not act as a judge. He acted as a prosecutor in robes. He betrayed the honorable profession – as a judge. But that is not really his profession.

Komitee is worth perhaps $100 million. He makes $5-10 million per year as a stock trader and investor, compared to his $232,600 as a judge.  His actual profession is stock trader, wheeler-dealer, a man who sells short – not only stocks, but also of justice.

He is an insider in the world of money, centralized in NYC, and dabbles as a judge. He is on the bench to help his friends, which makes him the consummate insider. He is an active stock trader who gets to sit on the bench and try cases for his insider friends.

Judge Komitee brings a new paradigm to the judiciary and world of hedge funds. He is the first of his kind. He is an entirely self-interested federal judge. He is wealthy and uses the judiciary to enhance his financial power, bringing him more wealth.

Now we will hear from dozens of witnesses who saw how Komitee handled the Watson case – Watson, the man who bothered his wealthy friends at Goldman Sachs.

Expert Witness for Defense Bullied by Komitee

On June 27, 2024 during the cross examination of Watson’s expert witness, Duke Professor David Robinson, the judge goaded the professor about his answers and gave the impression that he was not answering the questions truthfully by his tone and demeanor in questioning this witness on top of the prosecutor’s questions on the same topic. Professor Robinson was effectively driven off the stand by the court in this case.

Professor Robinson wrote to the chief judge for the Eastern District of New York to complain:

Professor Robinson’s Letter to Chief Judge Brodie about Komitee’s Bias

Dear Judge Brodie:

I appeared as an expert witness for the defense in US v. Carlos Watson and Ozy Media on Thursday, June 27. I am writing to you to convey my concern about the judicial bias that I saw present that day.

At the outset, I want to be clear: I am not writing at the request of defense counsel, nor has defense counsel (or anyone, for that matter) reviewed or assisted in the preparation this letter. I am writing simply as a private citizen to express my concern based on what I witnessed in the courtroom, no different than if I were sitting in the public gallery listening to the trial.

At numerous points during the day in connection with my testimony, the judge took actions that seemed clearly to favor or assist the prosecution. For example, during my cross-examination, I found it impossible to understand a particular hypothetical question posed by prosecution. The judge then reformulated the hypothetical to help the prosecution get her point across. In fact, he began his interjection with, “I think the question is meant to imply …” and then went on to vary the hypothetical on her behalf, departing from what I understood her to be asking. I was then directed to answer his question instead of hers. I found myself wondering, “Is the Judge working for the prosecution? I didn’t think a judge could do this.” If leading the witness is a basis for objection, how is leading the prosecution not objectionable?

Evidence of his disdain for the defense was rampant throughout the day. Over the weekend I shared the following courtroom exchange with a colleague who teaches in a law school:

Ron Sullivan: “At this point, Your Honor, we would tender Dr. Robinson as an expert in the area of entrepreneurial finance.”

Judge Komitee: “I do not qualify witnesses as experts, but the witness may give testimony pursuant to Rule 702”

When my colleague heard this, he cackled and said, “Well when he allowed you to give testimony pursuant to Rule 702 he in fact DID qualify you as an expert, because 702 concerns the definition of an expert. It sounds to me that he just didn’t want to say those words in front of the jury because he didn’t want the jury to hear the word expert in connection with your testimony.”

There were other instances that day where the context of the question from the judge, his tone of voice, nonverbal cues, etc., suggested to me that he looked on the defendant with suspicion, but did not look upon the prosecution with similar suspicion. When I shared my concerns about my experience to friends and colleagues who either teach in law schools or have argued cases before juries, they each said, “Judges can ask questions but they aren’t supposed to be biased.” Their reactions have led me to conclude that I needed to share my concerns with you.

I fully understand and accept that courtrooms are contentious places. I also understand that the prosecution has an obligation, as well as strong incentives based on career concerns, to work as hard as it can to win its case. My concern is that the behavior I saw in court deprives the accused of a fair trial by limiting his counsel’s ability to mount a defense. My understanding is that it is the solemn responsibility of a jury, and their responsibility alone, to render a verdict based on the facts of a case as they understand them. If a judge behaves in a manner that suggests to the jury that he looks with suspicion at one side but not the other, then that judge surely biases their judgments. I worry that this is happening right now on the 8th floor of your courthouse in the matter of US vs. Carlos Watson and Ozy Media.

Very truly yours, David T. Robinson

A Word About Professor Robinson

One might dismiss Professor Robinson’s claim of bias against Komitee as just an unjustified personal opinion, if there weren’t many others like him who witnessed the Watson trial with mouths agape as Judge Komitee put his thumb on the scales of justice, and if Robinson was not a distinguished professor, with a sterling reputation from a highly acclaimed school,

David T. Robinson is the James and Gail Vander Weide Distinguished Professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, and is the Research Director of Duke’s Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. He is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of private equity, venture capital and entrepreneurial finance. His work has appeared in leading academic journals in finance and economics, and has been featured in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Newsweek, and The Economist.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio