Clase, Ortiz Trial: Co-Defendants Adversarial As They Dispute Details

The sports corruption trial of former Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz and recently arraigned co-defendant Robinson Vasquez Germosen remains scheduled for May 4, but legal maneuvers involving the receipt of discovery from the Department of Justice could delay it. If a magistrate grants either Ortiz or Vasquez their request for more time to prepare defenses, that could also push back the date.

Whenever the trial commences, it figures to be an adversarial proceeding, with Ortiz’s attorneys, who have sought a separate trial, contending that they will call one of Clase’s attorneys as a witness. They will also deny that Ortiz knew anything about what the government alleges: that the pitchers conspired to alter the location or speed of numerous pitches to allow gamblers to win prop bets on them.

Ortiz’s asking for a severed trial centers around his contention that as a late addition to a gambling scheme that spanned parts of three seasons — he’s alleged to have rigged pitches for gamblers in two games from May through June last season — he would be unfairly equated with Clase. Federal prosecutors claim Clase, who recruited Ortiz and communicated with gamblers about their alleged activities, is accused of attempting to rig pitches on far more occasions, upward of 48 from 2023 through 2025 that have been alleged in court filings so far.

Ortiz (on right in above photo) and Clase (on left) are each charged with four counts: wire fraud conspiracy, honest services wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to influence sports betting contests by bribery, and money laundering conspiracy. Both pitchers pleaded not guilty.

A fourth co-defendant has not been named and remains at large.

Gamblers allegedly won as much as $58,000 on some of the 19 documented Clase pitches in question, including $4,000 on one in Game 1 of the 2024 American League Division Series against Detroit. Clase bounced his first pitch of the ninth inning to Matt Vierling, but retired the side in order to close out a 7-0 victory. Cleveland won the series in five games.

Potential Clase-Ortiz trial conflicts

Documents filed by attorneys for Ortiz, Clase, and federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York reveal potential adversarial defense strategies. Clase’s attorneys filed paperwork supporting Ortiz’s request, citing their client’s desire for a May 4 trial.

Clase continues to favor that date, because an exoneration would allow him to receive his scheduled $6.4 million salary for the 2026 MLB season, according to his attorneys. Both Clase and Ortiz remain on paid administrative leave through an agreement by MLB and the players’ union.

Vasquez’s attorneys contend that they won’t be adequately prepared for trial before September. Ortiz’s attorneys filed documents contending that they are “unavailable” in October, but could begin a defense on Nov. 9.

Federal prosecutors oppose splitting the cases.

Revelations of potential conflicting defenses from these filings include:

Defense strategy

• Ortiz now claims that he didn’t actually participate in a gambling scheme knowingly and was an unwitting, non-complicit victim. His attorneys claim that Clase used scouting reports and casual conversations with his teammate to anticipate Ortiz’s strategies, which Clase then relayed to gamblers.
• Clase is expected to argue that no inside information was shared, refuting federal prosecutors’ allegations that the ring used code words like “chicken” and “rooster” to communicate the pitchers’ intentions.

Contradictions

• Ortiz will contend that a conspiracy existed, but that he wasn’t a part of it.
• Clase will contend there was no conspiracy.
• A jury accepting one premise would in theory hurt the other, although federal prosecutors said in a response to Ortiz’s severance request: “If Clase shared the information without Ortiz’s knowledge and without paying Ortiz a kickback, a jury could conclude that Clase was not involved in a conspiracy to influence sporting contests by bribery, because the pitcher (Ortiz) was not bribed.”
• Ortiz must explain the $5,000 and $7,000 payments that the government alleges were made to him after he supposedly rigged pitches on June 15 and June 27. If he concedes that they were payments for acts he didn’t agree to commit, he would still incriminate Clase as the cog of a conspiracy.
• Ortiz’s lawyers told the EDNY before he was indicted that he had not communicated with Clase during either the June 15 or June 27 games. Now Ortiz contends that he shared information with Clase before those games, but without any inclination that it would be used to make prop bets. This flip is potentially damaging to both, because it implicates Clase in a conspiracy.
• Ortiz’s attorneys have indicated they plan to call one of Clase’s attorneys to impeach a witness, Bettor 1, that implicated Clase in the scheme.

Ultimately, federal prosecutors argue that the Ortiz and Clase defenses are not legally “mutually antagonistic” and therefore they can be tried fairly at the same time. From the response to Ortiz’s request to sever: “Critically, Ortiz is incorrect that a determination that Ortiz did not participate in the conspiracy mandates a finding that Clase did … In short, Ortiz’s proffered defenses do not constitute ‘mutual’ antagonism.”