4.Hearing on Contextual Use of Camila's Messages
51 linesMS. HAJJAR: Your Honor, I don't know if you would like to take a break at this time.
THE COURT: We should. Let's take our morning break. All rise for the jury.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: You may stand down. Do not discuss your testimony with anyone.
MAEGAN REES: Yes, sir.
(Witness steps the stand.)
THE COURT: We will take a 10-minute break.
(Recess taken.)
THE COURT: Ms. Hajjar, about how long will you have this witness on direct?
MS. HAJJAR: I think the remainder of the day, Your Honor. I have asked defense counsel to give an estimate of their cross-examination time so I can stop and give them time to conclude that cross-examination today. That is the hope, Your Honor. I don't know if it will go.
THE COURT: What you are saying is that between direct and cross you think it will go the rest of the day?
MS. HAJJAR: Yes.
MR. AGNIFILO: I don't know that there will be a long cross. I will only cross on things that are contextual. I certainly don't see a long cross. There might be a very short cross because it seems that the Government is going to be getting into large kind of parts of this, which really kind of negates the need to go back into them.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. AGNIFILO: So I don't see a long cross.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. AGNIFILO: Judge, can I make one other thing clear.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you, Judge. We obviously didn't object to the disc coming into evidence, but that's subject to the objection we raised in the letter.
THE COURT: I understand that.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, I just wanted to make sure.
THE COURT: I understand that. But I think the comments of Camilla are in the context of Mr. Raniere's statements are necessary otherwise the defendant's statements are not going to be understood. If you want me to give a limiting instruction, you will let me know what that is, but I am going to allow the statements to come in because otherwise the jury will be left with just Mr. Raniere's statements and not with any context in which to understand them. So I understand your point about Camilla's statement. She is not a co-conspirator in regard to this particular situation.
MR. AGNIFILO: So --
THE COURT: If that's the argument, she is not. This is just their relationship that's the subject here.
MS. HAJJAR: If I may clarify, Your Honor. The disc we admitted is only vicibabi@gmail.com, which I understand the defendant is not objecting to subject to Your Honor's ruling earlier this morning. The camillascastle e-mail account I have not yet offered. I do have them for the Court's review if the Court would like. In our view, the same way Camilla's messages in the context of the vicibabi@gmail.com exchange are necessary to understand the response, so too for camillascastle. But I haven't yet offered that exhibit.
MR. AGNIFILO: By way of example, I mean, one of the ones where I think that we could still have a problem is Government Exhibit 1701, which has now been admitted to the jury, is just a statement by Camilla, you know, that full moon is tomorrow and that will make it 30 full moons that we've been together. There is no response to that. They have certainly offered it for the truth, because they didn't follow it up with the agent.
THE COURT: That is a good question. What about that statement?
MS. HAJJAR: Your Honor, the defendant's objections have been confined to camillascastle except for this objection to the 1700 series that dealt with Lauren Salzman. Counsel didn't mention the 1701 e-mail account in his remarks to Your Honor this morning.
MR. AGNIFILO: It's the first thing we listed in our written motion, 1701. I mean, it's the first one. In category 4, we said we object to the 1700 series as being inadmissible hearsay offered for the truth, including the following documents, 1701.
THE COURT: 1701. It's there.
MS. HAJJAR: Your Honor, if you would like to make a limiting instruction to that effect, we don't object to that. This was sent to kunterre@nightcap@rr.com. It's significant because many of these e-mails are sent from Camilla to Camilla. That one was sent to the defendant and they're in the same --
THE COURT: But it is her statement not to him, not his statement to her, and there is no follow on by him which would permit it in, at least for context. That's the problem.
You think about that because I can always advise the jury -- well, if I start advising the jury on that, that is going to bring more attention to it. I think that is the last thing that the defense would want.
Yes?
MR. AGNIFILO: Right. That's right.
THE COURT: Well, let's move on.
MS. HAJJAR: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But if there is any statement that Camilla is making that is not in the context of other statements made by the defendant that establishes -- that makes sense out of the defendant's statement or follows on to the defendant's statement, then you will let me know because I will rule on it.
MS. HAJJAR: I think this will come up in the context of the camillascastle 1400, which we can address. We can confer with defense counsel over lunch. I won't get to those before the lunch break.
MR. AGNIFILO: It will come up there.
THE COURT: I understand. You understand my concern about Camilla is not a co-conspirator with regard to her relationship, romantic relationship with the defendant.
MS. HAJJAR: With respect to DOS, she is. But with respect to the e-mails we are referring to now, correct.
THE COURT: With respect to these e-mails.
MS. HAJJAR: Yes.
THE COURT: When we get to DOS, that's a whole different situation potentially.
MS. HAJJAR: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's bring in the witness.
(Witness takes stand.)
THE COURT: Let's bring in the jury, please.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
You may continue with your examination of the witness. The witness is reminded that she is still under oath.
MAEGAN REES: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MS. HAJJAR: