9.Motion to Strike Retrospective Lay Opinions and Foundation Guidance
21 linesMR. AGNIFILO: I'm sorry, I am going to move to strike the answer that she gave before.
THE COURT: Overruled. I think -- why don't we break for the day. It is after five o'clock.
MR. LESKO: Very well.
THE COURT: We can convene tomorrow. The witness is excused. You may step down. Do not discuss your testimony with anyone and we will resume at 9:15 tomorrow morning.
You may leave.
THE COURT: Very well.
(Witness steps down.)
THE COURT: All right. Everyone may be seated.
Members of the jury, this concludes testimony for today. I remind you that it is very important that you follow my instruction that you not discuss the case with anyone, not your family, friends, or business associates, and not your fellow jurors.
Also, you must not read, listen to, or watch any accounts of this case in any form of media, including newspapers, TV, radio, podcast or the internet. And you should not research or seek outside information about the case.
Also, do not communicate with anyone about the case on your phone, whether 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. And you must not consider anything you may have read or heard about the case outside this courtroom whether you read it before or during jury selection or during this trial. And do not visit any of the locations identified during the course of the jury selection or trial.
We will see you tomorrow morning at 9:15. All rise for the jury.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Anything else?
MS. PENZA: Not from the Government.
MR. AGNIFILO: Can I make a one-minute record, Judge?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. AGNIFILO: Judge, this repeated sort of system questions for each witness, that looking back at it, what did you think by a certain set of facts and the witnesses, just like in this case, I thought I was being groomed to join a harem, that's not the witness testifying to eyewitness observations. This is a lay witness that's here to talk about what she saw, what she heard, what she did. She is not an expert. She is certainly not an expert on another person's intention in the context of her own life. It's highly prejudicial. It's been going on throughout the Government's case in chief and I object to it and I renew my motion to strike.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lesko, do you want to comment on that?
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, I mean, I think it is highly relevant, and not only with respect to this witness but for other witnesses and victims, that the jury understand their understanding of what happened to them and particularly after they were, in essence, deprogramed.
And in this specific instance, that understanding happened very quickly after the witness received an assignment to have contact with the defendant. So, it actually is particularly relevant for this witness because it was an instantaneous recognition of what was going on.
THE COURT: Then what you need to do is ascertain from the witness when this happened so that we know that it wasn't just something that the person thought up last week before she testified. If it affected her behavior in removing herself from the organization, then it is relevant. If it is something that she read in all of the media reports, in the New York Times magazine, for instance, and other places, and Forbes magazine, then it is a different story. Then it is not what she ascertained at about the time that she removed herself from the organization. I think that is a key to whether this such testimony is appropriate and relevant to the case.
MR. LESKO: We will be offering detailed testimony on this.
THE COURT: All right. We will see. Thank you. And you have your record.
(Matter adjourned to June 11, 2019 at 9:15 a.m.)
oooOooo