3.Rule 29 Motion Denied, Raniere's Testimony Waiver, and Close of Evidence
74 linesMR. AGNIFILO: I have nothing else, your Honor.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything else from the Government?
MS. PENZA: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Witness is excused. You may stand down.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Thank you, your Honor.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: The Government may call its next witness.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, the Government rests its case.
THE COURT: Very well. At this time, members of the jury, we're going to take a short recess and then bring you back.
All rise for the jury.
(Jury exits.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Does the defense have a motion?
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, your Honor.
We move to dismiss certain counts of the indictment as being insufficient in terms of the evidence and the testimony elicited at the trial. We simply don't believe there has been sufficient evidence --
THE COURT: Can you speak more into the microphone so everybody can hear you better? Thank you.
MR. AGNIFILO: We don't believe there's been sufficient evidence of an enterprise. We would think that there's insufficient evidence of the enterprise, we think there's insufficient evidence of the various racketeering acts that comprise Counts One and two.
And we can make a more specific motion, but, at this point, we believe that there's insufficient evidence in regard to the counts and in regard to the racketeering acts.
MS. HAJJAR: Your Honor, the Government can make a more specific proffer should the defense wish to make a more fulsome argument, but there's more than sufficient evidence for this case to go to the jury.
Lauren Salzman, Daniela, Mark Vicente all testified regarding the enterprise, regarding the racketeering acts, regarding the fact that the enterprise, the purpose of it was to promote the Defendant, and that the Defendant committed these racketeering acts because of his position as the leader of the enterprise.
But should the Defendant make a more specific argument, we're happy to respond, your Honor.
MR. AGNIFILO: Your Honor, for the moment, I want to focus on the absence of evidence of commercial sex in regard to the sex trafficking counts and -- acts, rather.
I don't think there's been anything elicited that would amount to legally sufficient evidence that there was commercial sex in this case and we move to dismiss in specific those particular charges.
THE COURT: All right.
Yes?
MS. HAJJAR: There certainly was, your Honor. The commercial sex act is defined as any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person. And in this case, there was ample testimony through Lauren Salzman, among others, that access to Keith Raniere, access to the Defendant, meant increased financial opportunities, meant access to money. Nicole testified that she was, in fact, provided with cash as a direct result of her sexual relationship with the Defendant.
Here, the Government has proven that the DOS first-line masters maintained their position, which directly translated to access to money, access to financial opportunities with the Defendant, as a result of tasking their slaves to have sex with the Defendant. And that nexus was amply shown by e-mail correspondence, including the e-mail correspondence between Allison Mack and the Defendant with regard to India, Nicole's testimony, and Jay's testimony.
So, that commercial sex aspect, your Honor, has been proven and should go to the jury.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: The Court concludes that there is sufficient evidence of the enterprise and the commercial sex acts to go to the jury for consideration. The motion is denied.
And at this point, the Court requests to know whether it's the intention of the Defendant to testify on his own behalf, and then I can query the Defendant regarding that.
Mr. Agnifilo?
MR. AGNIFILO: Just give me one minute, Judge.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. AGNIFILO: Your Honor, thank you for the time.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. AGNIFILO: We've spoken. I've spoken with my client about the matter. My client does not wish to testify.
THE COURT: All right. Let me address this directly to Mr. Raniere.
Mr. Raniere, you have the right under the Constitution of the United States --
You can stay seated, that's fine.
You have the right under the Constitution of the United States to testify in your behalf, if you wish to do so. On the other hand, if you decide not to testify, the Court will instruct the jury that you have the absolute right under the Constitution of the United States not to testify and the fact that you are not testifying cannot be considered in any way by the jury in connection with its determination of whether you've broken the law.
So, I will instruct the jury should you decide not to testify that they cannot take that into account against you when reviewing the evidence in the case; do you understand that?
KEITH RANIERE: I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: And have you discussed your right to testify with your attorneys?
KEITH RANIERE: I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Have they answered all your questions about your right to testify?
KEITH RANIERE: They have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that the choice to testify or not testify reposes with you and you alone?
KEITH RANIERE: I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: And are you satisfied as a result of your conversations with your attorneys that your decision not to testify is made voluntarily and is made in such a way that it reflects your decision not to testify?
KEITH RANIERE: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there anything else you'd like me to ask of your client?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
I find that the Defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify in this trial.
Let's bring back the jury.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, one thing. I'm sorry.
The Government does want to put on the record that it has offered to the defense to make any of its witnesses available to them. That includes our two cooperating witnesses, including Lauren Salzman, who testified earlier in the trial.
That offer has -- no one has taken us up on that offer, and, so, we just want to put that on the record, that the defense does not wish us to make anyone available for their case.
THE COURT: Is that correct?
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, that's correct.
THE COURT: All right.
Are you planning to put on a case?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, Judge.
THE COURT: Do you want me to take the jury out and do the Rule 29 motion again once I have ascertained that you're not putting on a case?
I'm willing to do that.
MR. AGNIFILO: No, I'm not requesting.
THE COURT: Do you understand what I'm saying?
MS. HAJJAR: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there any desire by the Government to have me go through that again?
MS. HAJJAR: I don't believe there's any need. If there's a motion...
THE COURT: Just checking.
(Jury enters.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Mr. Agnifilo.
MR. AGNIFILO: The defense rests as well.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Members of the jury, this concludes the evidentiary portion of the case. The next step will be closing arguments by the Government and the defense and the rebuttal by the Government, to be followed by the charge as to the law, which the Court will give you at that point, and then you will retire to consider your verdict.
So, on Monday morning, I'd like you to try to be here, everyone to be here, as close to 9 o'clock as possible so we can move right into the closing arguments, and we'll take it from there.
At this time, I'm going to remind you that it's 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.
In addition, you must not read, listen to, watch, or access any accounts of this case on any form of media, such as newspapers, 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, 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.
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 jury selection or trial.
So, we're going to adjourn for the day and get a good rest over the weekend, and then we'll proceed with closing arguments on Monday morning. And, as always, on behalf of the parties, the Court thanks you for your attention to this case.
All rise for the jury.
(Jury exits.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Is there anything else from the Government for today?
MS. PENZA: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: And your motion was made at the end of the Government's case.
MR. AGNIFILO: Right.
THE COURT: Do you need to make it again?
MR. AGNIFILO: I don't feel the need to.
THE COURT: I'm just making sure.
And is there anything else?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, there's not from us.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m., we're going to have the charge conference. Since it's not a normal court day, I would appreciate it if whoever is interested in attending the charge conference from either the media or the public advise the marshals that they intend to be here so that if we don't have enough room in the gallery, that we could also utilize the overflow room and the media room. And that way, we can avoid tomorrow morning having an immediate difficulty with seating everybody who may wish to be here.
I think that's basically it. Monday morning we're going to try to start at 9:00 a.m. because we expect closings to be lengthy.
So, the last question is, who is doing the initial closing for the Government, your Honor?
MS. PENZA: I am, your Honor.
THE COURT: And how long do you think your closing is going to take?
You haven't been very successful with these --
MS. PENZA: I know that, your Honor, which I apologize for, but I will keep it under four hours.
THE COURT: All right.
And the defense?
MR. AGNIFILO: I'll be under four hours also.
THE COURT: And then for rebuttal?
MR. LESKO: Hour or less.
THE COURT: So, my sense is that we can get to the charge sometime relatively early on Tuesday. And, as I said, I'm going to have my law clerks assist me with the charge, providing the charge to the jury.
All right, that's it. Thank you very much.
(Matter adjourned until Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 11 o'clock a.m.)