3.Preliminary Jury Instructions

THE COURT: Please be seated, everyone.

Good morning, members of the jury.

THE COURT: Members of the jury, we are about to begin the trial of the United States' criminal case against defendant, Keith Raniere. Keith Raniere is the only defendant who will stand trial before this jury. Please do not speculate as to why this is the case.

As the trial begins, I would like to prepare you for these proceedings by telling you a few things about the process and what is expected of you during the trial.

As you know, I am United States District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and I will be presiding over this case. At times, I may refer to myself during the trial as "the Court."

Today I am wearing my judicial robe, but I may not wear it every day, and that is because I don't find robes particularly comfortable, not because I don't consider this case to be important -- I certainly do -- I rarely wear a robe for any of my cases, so you shouldn't draw any conclusions from this fact.

As I advised you during jury selection, this trial is predicted to last about six weeks. You should already have a copy of the trial schedule. Generally, testimony will begin each morning at 9:30 and will conclude by 5:00 p.m., there will be a one-hour break for lunch every day at approximately 1:00 p.m., and a short break each morning around 11:30 a.m. and each afternoon around 3:00 p.m. If at any point you require an additional break, please raise your hand and we will try our best to accommodate your needs. Jurors may take notes throughout the trial and there are notepads provided in the jury room for your use. I also see that many of you have already taken advantage of that for yourselves.

As this is an anonymous jury, you will be driven to and from the courthouse each day by the United States Marshal Service and you will be accompanied by the United States Marshal Service if you should go anywhere during your midday breaks. Lunch will be provided so you will not have to leave the courthouse for lunch.

I would now like to introduce to you the parties again. The United States Government is represented by Assistant United States Attorneys Moira Penza, Tanya Hajjar, and Mark Lesko. They may be joined at counsels' table from time to time by FBI Special Agents Michael Lever and Michael Weniger and Paralegal Teri Carby.

There is one defendant in this case: Keith Raniere.

Please stand, Mr. Raniere. Thank you.

He is represented by attorneys Marc Agnifilo, Teny Geragos, Paul Der Ohannesian, and Danielle Smith. Thank you.

Also present in the courtroom are my Court Deputy, Joseph Reccoppa, who you've already met, and my law clerks assigned to this case, Andrew Haddad and Sequin Strohmeier.

During the course of these proceedings, you will hear me use a few terms which you may not have heard before. Let me now briefly explain some of the most common terms.

This is a criminal case commenced by the United States, which I may sometimes refer to as "the prosecution" or "the Government." This case is against Keith Raniere, whom I may refer to as "the defendant." The prosecution and the defendant together are sometimes called "the parties to the case." I will sometimes refer to myself as "the Court." You will sometimes hear me refer to "counsel." Counsel is another way of saying lawyer or attorney. You may sometimes hear the attorneys make objections during the trial to certain evidence that the other side is presenting. When I sustain an objection, this means that I am excluding from trial the evidence to which the party objected. You may not consider excluded evidence. When you hear me overrule an objection, this means that I am permitting the evidence to be admitted, which means you can consider it in your deliberations.

THE COURT: When I say "admitted into evidence" or "received into evidence," I mean that this particular statement or this particular exhibit or piece of evidence is now part of the trial and you may consider it when making the decisions you must make at the conclusion of the case.

The term "burden of proof" or "sustaining its burden of proof" means the obligations of proving the case. In this trial, it is the government's obligation to produce proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges in the indictment.

The government began this case by obtaining an indictment. An indictment is a formal written accusation of a crime which formally commences a prosecution and provides notice to the defendant about the charges. It is not evidence. The indictment in this case charges the defendant with crimes that allegedly took place between approximately 2003 and March 2018. There are seven counts in this indictment for you to consider. I will now describe these charges.

The first count is racketeering conspiracy. The government alleges that in or about and between 2003 and March 2018, Keith Raniere, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to conduct and participate directly and indirectly in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity and, further, that Keith Raniere agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two racketeering acts, that is, at least two crimes in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.

The next count is racketeering. The government alleges that in or about and between 2003 and March 2018, Keith Raniere, together with others, employed by and associated with the enterprise, knowingly and intentionally conducted and participated in directly and indirectly the affairs of that organization through a pattern of racketeering activity. It charges further that the enterprise engaged in interstate and foreign commerce and its activities affected interstate and foreign commerce. Within the second count, the indictment alleges 14 racketeering acts or crimes, allegedly committed in furtherance of the enterprise. These acts include identity theft, visa fraud, forced labor, sex trafficking, extortion, money laundering, sexual exploitation of a child, and possession of child pornography.

The next count is forced labor conspiracy. The government alleges that in or about and between September 2015 and June 2017, Keith Raniere, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to provide and obtain the labor and services of one or more persons by means of force, physical restraint or threats of physical restraint, serious harm or threats of serious harm, for one or more schemes, plans or patterns intended to cause them to believe that if they did not perform such labor and services, they and one or more persons would suffer serious harm.

The next count is wire fraud conspiracy. The government alleges that in or about and between September 2015 and June 2017, Keith Raniere, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud one or more persons and to obtain money and property from them by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises.

The next count is sex trafficking conspiracy. The government alleges that in or about and between February 2016 and June 2017, Keith Raniere, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, maintain, patronize or solicit one or more persons or to benefit from participation in a venture that engaged in such acts, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that the means of force, threats of force, fraud or coercion or a combination of such means would be used to cause such persons to engage in one or more commercial sex acts which offense was affected by force, fraud, coercion or a combination of such means. The next count is sex trafficking. The government alleges that in or about and between February 2016 and June 2017, Keith Raniere, together with others, knowingly and intentionally recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized or solicited a person or benefited from participation in a venture that engaged in such acts, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that threats of force, fraud or coercion or a combination of such means would be used to force that person to engage in one or more commercial sex acts which offense was affected by force, fraud, coercion or a combination of such means.

The final count is attempted sex trafficking. The government alleges that in or about and between February 2016 and June 2017, Keith Raniere, together with others, knowingly and intentionally attempted to recruit, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, maintain, patronize or solicit one or more persons or benefited from participation in a venture that engaged in such acts, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that means of force, threats of force, fraud or coercion or a combination of such means would be used to cause such person to engage in one or more commercial sex accounts which offense was affected by force, fraud, coercion or a combination of such means.

This concludes the summary of the charged crimes. Again, I remind you that the indictment is simply a charge by the government to begin a case and that it is not in any sense evidence of the allegations or statements it contains.

The defendant Keith Raniere has pleaded not guilty to all of the counts charged against him. You must, therefore, presume that Keith Raniere is not guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment. You must maintain this presumption for the defendant unless you determine, at the time of your deliberations, after reviewing the evidence and discussing the case with your fellow jurors that the government has met its burden of proving each of the elements of the crimes charged in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.

At the conclusion of the trial, after you have heard all of the evidence and after I have had the opportunity to confer with the lawyers, I will give you the final and controlling statement concerning the law to be applied in this case including what the elements of the crimes are. My remarks at this time are preliminary. I am giving you this preliminary summary now to help you as you hear the evidence and see the exhibits. My instructions at the end of the trial will provide much more guidance concerning the nature and scope of your deliberations. They will be provided to you both orally from the bench and in writing so you can consult them during your jury deliberations.

The trial will proceed in the following order.

The parties have the opportunity to make opening statements. The government may make an opening statement at the beginning of the case, the defendant may make an opening statement following the government's opening statement or may postpone its opening statement until the close of the government's case. The defendant is not obligated to make an opening statement. Moreover, whatever is said in the opening statements is not evidence. The opening statements simply serve as an introduction to the evidence that the party making the opening statement intends to produce during the trial.

Second, after any opening statements, the government will introduce the evidence that it feels supports the charges contains in the indictment.

Third, after the government has presented its evidence, the defendant may present evidence but he is not obligated to do so. The burden or obligation as you will be told many times during the course of this trial is always on the government to prove each and every element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law never imposes on a defendant in a criminal case the burden of calling any witnesses, producing any exhibits or introducing any evidence. The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges. Fourth, after all of the evidence has been received, in other words, after all the witnesses have testified and after all the exhibits have been admitted, each party will be given the opportunity to present its argument to you in support of its case. This is called closing argument. Whatever is said in closing argument is not evidence just as whatever is said in opening statements is not evidence. The closing arguments are designed to present to you the theories and conclusions of the parties as to what the evidence has shown and what inferences may be drawn from the evidence.

Fifth, after you have heard the closing arguments of the parties, I will give you orally and in writing the final instructions concerning the law which you must apply to the evidence received during the trial. Those instructions will be much more detailed than what I am giving you now. You will then retire to consider your verdict. Your deliberations are secret. You will not be required to explain your verdict to anyone. Your verdict must be unanimous. In other words, all twelve of you must agree to it.

You must keep an open mind to both sides during this trial. As you know, there are generally two sides to most stories and you must not make up your mind about any of the questions in this case until you have heard each piece of evidence and all of the law that you must apply to that evidence. In other words, you must not make up your mind until you conduct your deliberations.

Your purpose as jurors is to find and determine the facts. If, at any time, I should make any comment regarding the facts or you think I am making some comment on a piece of evidence, you are at liberty to disregard it entirely. It is especially important that you perform your duty in determining the facts diligently and conscientiously because ordinarily, there is no means of correcting an erroneous determination of the facts by a jury. On the other hand, and with equal emphasis, I instruct you that the law as given by the Court in these and other instructions constitutes the only law for your guidance. It is your duty to accept and follow the law as I give it to you even though you may disagree with the law.

You are to determine the facts solely from the evidence admitted in the case. This evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses and exhibits received. Questions asked by the lawyers are not evidence. The evidence consists of the witnesses' answers to the questions, not the questions themselves. As I said earlier, statements and arguments of counsel are not evidence. Counsel may, however, enter into agreements or stipulations regarding facts which are not in dispute and when they do so, you may accept the facts as stipulated by counsel. I may also tell you that I am taking judicial notice of certain facts and you may accept those facts as true. It is always up to you, however, to decide what facts are established by the evidence and what inferences are to be drawn from the evidence.

Now, as I had mentioned earlier, the parties may sometimes raise objections to some of the testimony or exhibits. It is the duty of a lawyer to object to evidence which he or she believes may not properly be received or admitted and you should not be prejudiced in any way against a lawyer who makes an objection or a party he or she represents. An objection is the only proper method for a lawyer to request a ruling from the Court concerning evidence. At times, I may sustain objections or direct that you disregard certain testimony or exhibits. You must not consider any evidence to which an objection has been sustained or any evidence that I have instructed you to disregard.

You may have already heard the terms "direct evidence" and "circumstantial evidence." Direct evidence is generally the testimony of a person who claims to have actual and direct knowledge of a fact, for example, the testimony of an eye witness who claims to have seen an event. So if you went outside and saw that it was raining, this would be direct evidence of rain. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is generally testimony of a chain of facts which may lead to a conclusion of some kind. For example, if you were to come here to court on a bright sunny day and then after several hours in this courtroom with the shades down, you saw people entering the courtroom from the rear, one wearing a wet raincoat and the other shaking a wet umbrella, you might infer from these circumstances without yourselves ever going outside or even looking out a window that it had rained while you were here in court. This is circumstantial evidence of rain.

In any event, the law makes no distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In considering the evidence in this trial, you should give it such weight or importance as you think it deserves, whether it is called direct or circumstantial evidence and make the deductions and reach the conclusions to which your experience and common sense lead.

In attempting to determine the facts of this case, you will be called upon to judge the credibility of witnesses. In deciding whether or not to believe what a witness has said, you may consider factors such as the following: How likely is it that the witness was actually able to see or hear whatever it is the witness says he or she saw or heard; the witness' ability to remember what happened; whether the witness has a strong personal interest in testifying in the case or an interest in how this case is decided; the demeanor of the witness on the witness stand and whether the testimony seems reasonable to you.

It is entirely at your discretion how you choose to evaluate each witness' testimony and any evidence submitted in the form of exhibits. You are free to believe all, some or none of what a witness says on the stand or what an exhibit illustrates. I will address the subject again in greater detail after you have heard all the evidence in this trial.

No statement, ruling, remark or comment which I may make during the course of the trial is intended to indicate my opinion as to how you should thus decide the case or is intended to influence you in any way in your determination of facts.

At times, I may ask questions of witnesses and if I do so, it is for the purpose of bringing out matters that I feel should be brought out and it is not intended in any way to indicate my opinion about the facts or to indicate the weight I feel you should give to the testimony of the witness so questioned. I may also find it necessary to admonish the lawyers and if I do, you should not show prejudice toward a lawyer or that lawyer's client because I have found it necessary to correct him or her.

At times during this trial, it will be important for me to confer privately with the lawyers and others about various evidentiary and procedural issues. During these conferences both here at the bench and in my chambers, it is not our intention to hide anything from you but simply to determine how certain issues will be handled. Please be patient with us during any such delays. We are only taking care to ensure that the trial is being conducted fairly.

At times, you will be required to wait in the jury room while I am required to hear and decide other matters from other cases not connected with this. These delays are unavoidable. I do everything I can to keep these interruptions to a minimum but I can never avoid them entirely so please be patient.

You are not to concern yourself in any way with the sentence the defendant might receive if you should find him guilty. Your function is solely to decide whether the government has sustained or carried its burden of proving the charges to you beyond a reasonable doubt. If and only if you find the defendant guilty of the charges will it become the duty of the Court to issue a sentence. The Court and the parties take care in deciding which evidence is admissible and which is not. This is because when you are making your decision at the end of the trial, you may only consider the evidence you receive during the formal trial proceedings in this room. This means, for example, that the attorneys and the parties are not permitted to speak with you outside of official trial proceedings. I have already instructed them on this point. In the unlikely event that you see one of the lawyers or parties in the hallway, he or she will not speak to you. Please be aware that this person is not being rude but is simply following the rules I have set. It is not appropriate for any party or any lawyer to speak with any of you no matter how innocent or trivial the conversation might be unless that party or lawyer speaks to all of the jurors at once under the Court's supervision.

Until you begin your deliberations after the evidence is closed, you must not discuss this case with anyone, not even if your fellow jurors. After you begin deliberating, you may discuss the case only with your fellow jurors and only in the jury room and only when all twelve of you are together. You may not discuss the case anywhere else or with anyone else including your family members, friends or business associates.

In addition, you must not read, listen to, watch or access any accounts of this case on any form of media, newspaper, TV, radio, podcasts or the internet, nor research or seek outside information about any aspect of the case. Please do not communicate with anyone about the case on your phone, through e-mail, text messaging or any other means, through any blog or website or by way of any social media including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube or other similar sites. You must not consider anything you may have read or heard about this case outside of this courtroom whether before the trial or during the trial or during the trial or during your deliberations.

Do not attempt any independent research or investigation about the case. Do not visit any of the locations identified during the course of testimony. Your decision in this case must be based solely and exclusively upon the evidence received during this trial.

I will repeat this admonition every day of the trial and every day it is extremely important that you continue to follow this instruction. We all deeply appreciate your attention to this instruction.

So, in conclusion, please keep a few key principles in mind as we begin the trial. Your job is to decide all of the factual questions in the case such as who should be believed and who should not be believed. How to decide all of the legal questions in this case such as what testimony or exhibits are received into evidence and which are not received, please do not concern yourselves with the legal questions.

The defendant has pleaded not guilty and is presumed to be innocent of the crimes charged against him. As such, the defendant is not required to produce any evidence whatsoever. Rather, by bringing the indictment, the government has accepted the responsibility of proving the guilt of the defendant to each of you unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt.

Finally, do not discuss the case with anyone and keep an open mind regarding each issue in the case until all of the evidence has been received. At that time, I will give you the complete and final instructions you must use to guide you in reaching your decisions. Then and only then will you be fully prepared to begin your deliberations and reach your verdicts. Do not permit any other person to discuss the case in your presence and if anyone does so despite your telling him or her not to, report that fact to the Court as soon as possible by advising the marshal or my courtroom deputy, Joseph Reccoppa. You should not, however, discuss with your fellow jurors that fact or any other fact that you feel necessary to bring to the attention of the Court. Please also remember that because of the media attention that this trial may receive, you are an anonymous jury. That means that nobody except the Court and the parties knows your identifying information. Please do not provide this information to anyone. You may tell your fellow jurors your first name only if you so choose, but you may not tell anyone else any identifying information except for your juror number. If anyone asks you for your identifying information, please report your experience to the Court by advising the marshal or Mr. Reccoppa.

I would like to thank you in advance for your willingness to serve and your careful attention throughout the trial.

All right. At this time, we will begin with opening statements. The government will give its opening statement first.

Ms. Hajjar, you may proceed with the government's opening statement.