Browse reporter-marked sidebars from the NXIVM archive, with links to the exact point in each transcript.
The 83 entries below include every sidebar marked in the court reporter transcripts available to the archive.
The court and counsel discussed Alternate No. 4’s newly enrolled summer courses and Juror No. 9’s reported difficulty serving because of pressure at home.
Court's actionThe judge stated that a spouse’s opposition alone would not justify excusing a juror.
The government sought a ruling before the witness testified, while the defense proposed keeping direct examination open to allow the government to address the disputed matter if permitted.
Court's actionThe court deferred ruling until hearing testimony, offered a sidebar near the end of direct examination, and instructed that the witness be told the issue was under serious consideration.
The court discussed whether Juror No. 9 could concentrate on the case given his wife’s stage 4 cancer and their son’s childcare needs.
Court's actionThe court excused Juror No. 9 and replaced him with Alternate No. 1.
Counsel said funds were available for realtime transcription but clearance from the trust had not been obtained.
Court's actionThe judge said he would order realtime transcription so the defendant could follow sidebar discussions.
Agnifilo moved for a mistrial, arguing that inconsistent use of first and full names risked confusing the jury and violated fair-trial rights.
Court's actionThe court said it would take up the motion after the jury left for the day.
Counsel disputed whether Monica Duran’s statements about releasing Ana Gaby’s collateral furthered the alleged conspiracy, with the government also arguing relevance to state of mind.
Court's actionThe court allowed the statements.
Counsel debated whether sexual-response questioning implied consent and disputed the use and disclosure of WhatsApp records and nude photographs on cross-examination.
Court's actionThe court permitted the proposed question about a first orgasm and some inquiry into the witness’s experience, required preliminary questions before using the documents, and said it would hold a hearing after trial.
Counsel discussed identifying and disclosing messages for witness questioning, with the defense proposing to delay text-message questions until after lunch to allow review.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to begin.
The government raised a hearsay objection to an email the defense offered to show Sylvie’s past enthusiasm for Jness.
Court's actionThe court instructed defense counsel to lay a foundation.
Counsel discussed questioning the witness about WhatsApp messages without offering the chats into evidence and keeping partially nude images from public view.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to turn his screen off for the images and on to read other chats.
Counsel disputed whether text messages about Pam were hearsay or admissible as context and evidence of the witness’s state of mind, and whether an instruction was needed.
Court's actionThe judge initially allowed the evidence and permitted redirect, then required an instruction before proceeding; after further argument, he ended the sidebar by saying he would decide.
Agnifilo argued that a deletion Post-it on the exhibit suggested testimony to the witness, while Penza said she had not realized it was visible.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the Post-it be kept off the exhibit.
Counsel discussed a witness reference list of victims’ first names and three individuals’ nicknames, along with plans for Mark Vicente’s testimony.
Court's actionThe court noted the defense objection, directed that Government Exhibit 353 be shown to government witnesses, and permitted the original at the witness table.
Defense counsel challenged testimony based on later reading or research as entering expert territory, while the prosecution described it as the witness’s evolving personal understanding.
Court's actionThe court allowed the testimony to continue, encouraged more foundation for the witness’s changed understanding, and permitted broad cross-examination on how he reached his conclusions.
Agnifilo raised prejudice, foundation, and relevance concerns about proposed fright-study testimony, while Hajjar said Vicente would testify, if allowed, that he supplied a violent film.
Court's actionThe court deferred the issue, saying it could be addressed during the lunch recess.
The reporter noted a sidebar conference but transcribed no dialogue.
Counsel discussed admitting four videotape exhibits subject to later connection, with Vicente describing the types of edits he directed rather than identifying the exact tapes.
Court's actionThe judge said he would grant admission upon the offer and instruct jurors that an additional witness must provide the basis for considering the evidence in deliberations.
The defense argued that exhibit name redactions implied sex-trafficking victim status and prejudiced the RICO charges, while prosecutors defended them based on anticipated humiliating evidence.
Court's actionThe court allowed the redactions and recognized the defense's continuing exception.
Counsel disputed whether Vicente could connect the videotape edits he directed to the tapes produced in a lawsuit.
Court's actionThe court allowed the prosecutor to attempt additional foundational questioning.
The reporter noted a sidebar continuing on the next page, with no conference dialogue transcribed.
Vicente raised an omission related to earlier questions, and counsel confirmed agreement on a replacement list correcting and adding names.
Court's actionThe judge permitted Vicente to ask his question on the record, directed him to return to the stand, and said he would explain the sidebar to the jury.
Counsel clarified Debra Giannone's identity, with Lesko citing potential embarrassment from surname disclosure and Agnifilo reiterating a continuing objection.
Court's actionThe court confirmed that the defense objection was on the record and would carry through the entire trial.
Defense counsel challenged proposed testimony about Vicente seeing Raniere in bed with a woman as irrelevant and prejudicial, while the government argued it explained his developing understanding of DOS.
Court's actionThe court said the concern could be discussed on cross-examination.
The reporter recorded that a sidebar conference took place but transcribed no dialogue.
Lesko raised the admissibility of statements Vicente received from non-co-conspirators about a secret society.
Court's actionThe court permitted the statements for Vicente’s state of mind and their effect on him, not for their truth.
Counsel debated admitting a Spanish-language document before J explained it, with Agnifilo objecting that its contents were unknown.
Court's actionThe court allowed admission subject to connection through J, stating it would strike the document without her related testimony, and said sealing was unnecessary.
Counsel disputed a conversation transcript’s authorship, accuracy, and admissibility, including whether it could instead be used to refresh the witness’s recollection.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to question the witness, permitted reference to the document, and deferred an admissibility decision; the sidebar was not sealed.
Counsel disputed whether questioning Vicente about the Mexico film project concerned his reasons for remaining in NXIVM or would stray into Raniere’s alleged good works.
Court's actionThe court allowed reasonable questioning about the film and Raniere’s involvement in making it, but excluded a broad discussion of the Mexico program as beyond the scope of direct examination.
Lesko objected to admitting an email as hearsay, while Agnifilo argued that it showed connections among people in SOP.
Court's actionThe court said the email remained hearsay and instructed counsel to ask about its contents, showing it to the witness to refresh recollection if he did not remember.
Prosecutors did not oppose using Defense Exhibit 343 to refresh the witness’s recollection but objected to describing it as a typical questionnaire.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to show the paper without characterizing it, ask whether it refreshed the witness’s recollection, and repeat the question if it did.
The government challenged the relevance and appropriateness of Fiji photographs and raised cumulative-evidence concerns, while the defense argued the images countered descriptions of abuse.
Court's actionThe court allowed Defense Exhibit 328 to be introduced and instructed the defense to stop before the photographs became excessive.
Defense counsel argued that a document was offered only to establish a 2006 date, and the discussion also addressed the remaining length of witness questioning.
Court's actionThe court characterized the document as hearsay and instructed counsel to question the witness first, then use the document to refresh recollection if he could not remember.
The defense sought to explore the witness’s Ramtha affiliation for context and credibility, while prosecutors warned against prolonged questioning and prejudicial focus on alien references.
Court's actionThe court directed questioning to proceed, said it would monitor the examination, and invited objections as needed.
Lesko requested that testimony about Catherine Oxenberg's statements be used only to establish Vicente's state of mind and their effect on him, not their truth.
Court's actionThe court agreed to give the limiting admonition after the first question and before the witness answered.
Counsel disputed whether questions about Keeffe’s FBI contacts explored Vicente’s motives or improperly introduced hearsay.
Court's actionThe court allowed questions about Vicente’s beliefs and concerns regarding Keeffe’s FBI contacts, but not his conversation with her, and directed counsel to move along.
Counsel discussed whether attorney-client privilege covered Herbits’s memo, including whether its disclosure established that privilege had been lost.
Court's actionThe judge stated that if the document had been widely distributed and Bronfman had asserted no privilege, no privilege remained, leaving counsel free to proceed.
Counsel disputed whether the defense could question the witness about notes and a check in a box the defense said was already admitted into evidence.
Court's actionThe court disallowed the questioning for now, noting the witness’s limited testimony about the box and names and stating that another witness would testify.
A sidebar conference was held, with no dialogue transcribed.
Defense counsel requested time to review a newly received chart for possible hearsay and questioned the witness’s familiarity, while the prosecution offered further foundational questions.
Court's actionThe court agreed to take the break immediately.
The reporter noted a sidebar and indicated continuation on the next page, with no dialogue transcribed in these entries.
The judge called for a sidebar without stating its subject.
Court's actionThe judge permitted seating in the rear.
The reporter noted that a sidebar was held, with no dialogue transcribed.
Hajjar objected that unqualified questions about readiness risked confusing the witness by conflating SOP and DOS readiness.
Court's actionThe judge instructed Agnifilo to make the distinction immediately.
The government challenged the foundation for questions about alleged NXIVM computer hacking, while defense counsel argued they fairly explored the witness’s earlier statements.
Court's actionThe judge permitted counsel to ask the witness how she knew of the alleged hacking, if she knew.
The judge identified two unspecified issues requiring resolution.
Court's actionThe court called for a sidebar to address both issues.
The defense objected to generalized testimony about conversations with Keith, while the prosecution argued that the witness was describing daily exchanges during an established period.
Court's actionThe court asked the prosecution to elicit details as specific as possible about particular issues and when events occurred.
The defense confirmed receipt of exhibit copies and maintained its previously stated objection without adding a new one.
Court's actionThe court admitted Exhibits 1539, 1544, 1540, 1591, and 1592, with 1539 and 1544 admitted over the defense objection.
The defense objected on hearsay grounds to Daniela’s proposed testimony about Mariana’s bulimia, while the prosecution identified Pam as a co-conspirator.
Court's actionThe court allowed the testimony if it concerned something Pam had told Daniela.
Agnifilo objected that lengthy narrative answers lacked clear timing and participant identification, while Penza defended them as responsive to questions about a complex story.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to focus on specific questions and answers about specific events.
The reporter noted a sidebar outside the hearing of the jury and courtroom, with no dialogue transcribed.
At sidebar, Marc Agnifilo stated that he did not object, without specifying the matter.
Penza questioned the good-faith basis for cross-examination, and Agnifilo said he would confront the witness with her own writing.
Court's actionThe court allowed Agnifilo to proceed.
An on-record sidebar was held outside the jury’s hearing.
Penza objected that questioning about Daniela's sheriff's ID misleadingly suggested she was pretending to be a law enforcement officer.
Court's actionThe court directed the defense to ask whether Daniela understood how a sheriff's ID card is issued.
Counsel disputed whether an email could establish a 2015 exchange involving Raniere without proving its statements true, with the prosecution raising hearsay and Rule 403 objections.
Court's actionThe court excluded the email but permitted questions about the exchange and use of the email to refresh the witness’s recollection if she did not know the answers.
The defense sought to exclude Elizabeth Butler’s testimony about medical-care conversations and challenged a medical-record notation about the duration of Camila’s sexual activity as layered hearsay.
Court's actionThe court admitted Butler’s testimony as evidence of the charged enterprise’s means and methods, finding exclusion unwarranted under Rule 403 and promising a limiting instruction; it also allowed the medical-record notation, requiring foundation and a limiting instruction if necessary.
The reporter noted that a sidebar was held but transcribed no dialogue.
A sidebar was held outside the jury’s hearing, with no dialogue transcribed.
A sidebar was held outside the jury's hearing, with no dialogue transcribed.
Defense counsel objected to a witness describing a graphic image, while the prosecutor argued it showed an early BDSM component in the relationship.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to address the image’s evidentiary value and possible harm.
The prosecutor argued that an image the defendant sent to Camila was probative in light of Nicole’s anticipated testimony and Lauren Salzman’s identification of Camila.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and allowed some discussion, but prohibited showing the picture, cautioned counsel about questioning, and reserved the option to stop it.
A sidebar was held outside the jury’s hearing, with no dialogue transcribed.
Lesko objected to evaluation-related cross-examination as misleading and beyond direct, while DerOhannesian argued it concerned Dr. Hughes's experience.
Court's actionThe court excluded the proposed question about a complete psychiatric history as beyond the scope of direct examination.
A sidebar was held outside the jury’s hearing, with no dialogue transcribed.
The defense objected to identifying co-conspirators before the jury, while the Government argued that India's statement was admissible as a co-conspirator statement.
Court's actionThe judge withdrew his statement, directed counsel to withdraw theirs, and instructed questioning to continue, stating that if there was an objection, it was overruled.
The reporter noted that the sidebar was sealed by court order; no dialogue was transcribed.
The reporter recorded that a sidebar was held, but no dialogue was transcribed.
Counsel disputed whether the exact wording of a Valentine's Day sexual message could be elicited and how to refresh the witness's recollection.
Court's actionThe judge ruled the statement hearsay and directed counsel to ask without eliciting its exact words, use the document if the witness did not remember, and accept her answer upon renewed questioning.
A sidebar was held outside the jury's hearing, with no dialogue transcribed.
The reporter recorded that a sidebar was held but transcribed none of the discussion.
The defense disputed whether Vicente’s testimony linked Exhibit 605 to videotapes altered and produced in litigation, while the prosecution argued sufficient foundation existed.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Lesko proposed marking an exhibit for identification and using it to refresh Investigator Guerci’s memory without seeking its admission.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to present the calculations.
Agnifilo requested a next-day start to consolidate and proceed more efficiently, and Lesko raised no objection.
Court's actionThe court allowed cross-examination to begin the next day.
Counsel disputed the scope of Exhibit 801, and the defense sought to introduce additional crossing records during its own case if necessary.
Court's actionThe court deferred a decision on the additional records.
Counsel alerted the judge that a juror appeared to be seeking attention during sidebar.
Agnifilo objected that the witness was giving expert opinions without notice, while Hajjar argued that his views explained his actions leading to the lawsuit.
Court's actionThe court directed Hajjar to focus her questions more directly on the issues in the case.
The defense challenged a Forbes article as irrelevant and prejudicial, while prosecutors offered it to explain subsequent events rather than prove its statements true.
Court's actionThe court allowed the article with a limiting instruction.
Defense counsel challenged adult sexual images as prejudicial, duplicative, and unrelated to the charges, raised a foundation objection concerning Lauren Salzman, and declined to object to the report itself.
The defense challenged adult images, but not their metadata, as unnecessary and remote from DOS, while the government argued they supported the timeline and alleged course of conduct.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection subject to the direction and amount of testimony and recognized the defense’s exception for other adult images.
Counsel disputed whether Rule 16 or Section 3500 required disclosure of CART notes and possible photographs documenting the evidence’s receipt, condition, and examination.
Court's actionThe court directed a search for the notes and an update before cross-examination ended, with questioning to continue on other topics; further consideration was reserved if Donnelly could not be located or the notes did not exist.
A sidebar was held outside the jury’s hearing, with no dialogue transcribed.
The sidebar concerned whether Mr. Sutton could testify by affidavit.
Court's actionThe court barred Mr. Sutton from testifying by affidavit and directed counsel to move to the next matter.
Counsel reviewed remaining wording and typographical issues in the jury charge, including identification of Nicole in the Count Six sex-trafficking instruction.
Court's actionThe judge agreed to add common before purpose on page 45, correct Racketeering Act typos on pages 77–78, and add Nicole to Count Six.
No sidebars match these filters.