Business

Doctor goes toe to toe with Martoma lawyer

The doctor was in the house on Wednesday.

A feisty Dr. Sidney Gilman gave the lawyer for accused inside trader Mathew Martoma a run for his money — taking issue a number of times with how lawyer Richard Strassberg framed his questions.

Gilman even told Strassberg his questions sounded more like declarative sentences.

At another point, the 81-year old doctor took back one of his answers — which went beyond what Strassberg asked — saying it was a “moot point.”

Later, as Strassberg got his first crack at the government’s key witness against his client, Judge Paul Gardephe intervened, asking the lawyer to refrain from asking questions with “compound clauses.”

The the three-week old trial enters its final days, Martoma’s legal eagles appeared careful to tread gingerly with Gilman, who was such a sought-out Alzheimer’s expert that annual fees from his consulting business were greater than his salary at the University of Michigan, where he made about $300,000 annually heading the neurology department.

Martoma is accused of making $276 million in profits and averted losses for his employer, Steve Cohen’s SAC Capital, from confidential final drug results he got from Gilman in July 2008.

That year, Gilman earned $425,000 in consulting fees, he testified in court Wednesday.

In the much anticipated cross-examination, Strassberg’s questioning had a light touch — the opposite of the cross examination of the main witness against Michael Steinberg, the other SAC Capital portfolio manager who was convicted last month.

In Steinberg’s case, his lawyer repeatedly called confessed inside trader-cum-key government witness Jon Horvath a liar.

So far, Strassberg has only suggested that Gilman might not be remembering everything correctly.

Gilman is the second doctor to put Martoma at the receiving end of illegal tips.

Strassberg has to balance going hard against Gilman — and risking putting off the jury — or going gently and not upsetting the evidence against his client.

Such a decision faced Strassberg in the afternoon when the lawyer attempted to show the jury that some of the alleged “confidential information” Gilman had told Martoma was already widely known.

Strassberg asked Gilman if he hadn’t told ABC News as much in 2006.

Gilman said he could not recall that, so Strassberg then showed Gilman an email between him and Roger Sergel, an ABC News journalist.

After an irritated Gilman insisted on reading the email through and through, Strassberg pointed out: “The only question before you is ‘Is this a communication between you and Roger Sergel of ABC News?”

A testy Gilman replied, “That is not the only question before us,” to which Strassberg answered “It’s the only question I asked.”

Martoma is facing at least 15 years in prison if convicted.

The cross-examination of Gilman continues Thursday.