Michael Cohen’s Lawyer Accused of Citing 3 Nonexistent Cases to Terminate His Supervised Release

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen faces a new legal challenge as a federal judge questions the validity of court cases cited in a motion for the early termination of his supervised release. The motion, prepared by Cohen’s attorney, David Schwartz, references three cases that, according to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, apparently don’t exist, as per HuffPost reports.

Cohen, who served a three-year prison sentence starting in 2018 for lying to Congress and campaign finance charges related to hush money payments, was released in November 2021. However, he remained under supervised release for three additional years. Seeking an early termination, Schwartz submitted a motion dated Nov. 29, claiming that since 2022, there have been court decisions granting early termination of supervised release, citing three cases: United States v. Figueroa-Florez, United States v. Ortiz, and United States v. Amato.

Judge Furman, upon reviewing the motion, raised concerns about the legitimacy of the cited cases. In an order, he stated, “As far as the Court can tell, none of these cases exist.” Furman even went further, reaching out to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, who found no record of any of the three decisions and noted an invalid docket number for one of the cases. Furman has given Schwartz until Dec. 19 to submit copies of the allegedly nonexistent cases, reports CNN . The judge has also asked for an explanation of how the motion came to cite non-existent cases and whether Cohen played a role in drafting or reviewing it. The decision on Cohen’s motion for early termination will be delayed until this matter is resolved.

Cohen’s new lawyer, E. Danya Perry, who joined the case after Schwartz filed the motion, acknowledged the issue. Perry informed the court that, in her research, she was unable to verify the cited case law and, by her ethical obligations, notified Judge Furman of the problem. Schwartz, the original attorney, has not commented on the judge’s order, leaving questions about the accuracy of the information presented in the motion unanswered. Cohen himself has not offered any comment on the matter.

The development comes at a critical time for Cohen, who has become a central figure in legal proceedings involving former President Trump. Cohen, now a vocal critic of Trump, has cooperated with investigations, including testifying for the New York Attorney General, and is expected to take the witness stand in a criminal trial next March brought by the Manhattan District Attorney. The judge’s scrutiny over the validity of the cited cases adds a layer of complexity to Cohen’s legal situation. If it is determined that Cohen had any role in the citation of non-existent cases, his credibility may be further scrutinized, particularly as he prepares to testify against Trump in the upcoming trial related to a hush-money scheme. As prosecutors oppose Cohen’s early release, citing public statements that allegedly contradict his guilty plea, the legal drama surrounding Cohen continues to unfold.