Musk vs Altman trial: What happened when the jury left

The most consequential moment in the Elon Musk vs Sam Altman trial on Thursday did not happen in front of the jury. It happened after they were dismissed early when Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers began questioning a witness herself, told plaintiff's counsel to stop coaching him, and suggested that Musk's own legal team may have just handed the opposing side a new line of attack.

Jared Birchall, Musk's money manager and long-time fixer, had given largely unremarkable testimony when the legal team's dynamic shifted. A note was passed to the attorney conducting his direct examination.

The attorney then asked Birchall whether he was familiar with xAI's bid for OpenAI's assets a question that had not been part of the planned testimony.

Birchall said he understood that Altman had been negotiating on behalf of both OpenAI's for-profit arm and its non-profit simultaneously, and that the xAI consortium submitted a $97.4 billion bid in February 2025 partly to force a proper market valuation of the non-profit's assets. Defence counsel objected immediately.

The testimony was struck for lack of foundation then re-established piece by piece until Birchall landed on the same conclusion a second time: "Sam Altman was on both sides of the table."

After dismissing the jury, Gonzalez Rogers questioned Birchall directly an unusual move that suggested she believed the standard deposition process had not adequately covered this topic. Birchall said he could not recall discussing the xAI bid with Musk, with Shivon Zilis, or with any other principal in the Musk organisation. He said the $97.4 billion figure came from the legal team, not from Musk.

"I'm still struggling with how you can have conversations with these individuals to raise $97.5 billion but have no recollections even in a general sense," she told him.

When Birchall explained that consortium members were persuaded through longstanding relationships, the judge replied: "You must have been very convincing. You're not very convincing today."

Gonzalez Rogers asked who had passed the note prompting the xAI question. The lawyers sat in silence. Eventually the person who passed it identified himself but said a junior lawyer had written it.

Finally, Marc Toberoff, a senior attorney who also submitted the original $97.4 billion bid letter and is not a junior lawyer, stood and took responsibility. His explanation for why he introduced the topic: "I thought it was appropriate."

"Sounds like you wanted to open the door, then," Gonzalez Rogers responded.