Skip to content
2019 Federal TrialtranscripttranscriptDefense Request for a Witness-Bias Instruction Denied - Day 26 - 2019 Federal TrialThe court declined to restore the defense’s proposed witness-bias instruction, leaving the jury charge unchanged over Agnifilo’s objection.
Tanya HajjarMoira Kim PenzaMarc AgnifiloNicholas G. GaraufisCourt ClerkTHE COURTMS. PENZAMR. AGNIFILOMS. HAJJARcharge_conference
3 pages·0 witnesses·191 lines
The court declined to restore a defense witness-bias instruction. Prosecutor Moira Kim Penza sought guilty findings on all counts, while Marc Agnifilo challenged the alleged enterprise's common purpose and the proof supporting individual charges. The defense closing remained unfinished at recess.
← Day 25Day 27 →
Defense Request for a Witness-Bias Instruction Denied
Charge ConferenceCharge Conf.Defense Request for a Witness-Bias Instruction Denied

(In open court.)

COURT CLERK: All Rise.

THE COURT: Be seated. We're waiting on the defendant and one van of jurors.

Have you tested all the equipment with your staff?

MS. PENZA: We have, your Honor. Hopefully it will all go smoothly.

COURT CLERK: Case on trial.

Counsel state your appearances.

MS. PENZA: Moira Penza, Tanya Hajjar, Mark Lesko for the United States. At counsel table is Special Agent Michael Wenniger, Special Agent Michael Lever, Paralegal Specialist Teri Carby and Randall Harvey who is assisting us.

MR. AGNIFILO: Mark Agnifilo, Temy Geragos, Paul DerOhannesan, Danielle Smith for Keith Raniere, who is here with us this morning.

THE COURT: Be seated. We're still waiting for one van of jurors.

Is there something anyone wants to raise before we start?

MR. AGNIFILO: Just, your Honor, I notice that your Honor removed the bias charge from our proposed instructions. We obviously thought that that charge was useful. We requested and we object to its removal.

THE COURT: Okay, you have your objection.

MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: I removed it. I thought it was much to specific and drew the attention of the jurors to specifics as opposed to the general situation that they could find of possible bias or prejudice. And I've never given a charge as specific as that while I've been a judge. I felt that it was suggestive as opposed to helpful. So that's my ruling on that.

Originally I thought I would put it in, then I gave it some thought over the weekend and felt that it was just too specific.

MR. AGNIFILO: Just so our position is clear. If your Honor prefers a different bias charge that your Honor is more comfortable with, the problem that I see is it's just a topic that's not captured in your Honor's listings of things for the jury to consider in regard to each witness. So I got this from a Judge Raykoff charge from a case that I had a couple of years ago. If your Honor has another charge that your Honor is more comfortable with, I'm happy to have whatever your Honor has.

THE COURT: Government?

MS. HAJJAR: We think it's encapsulated from the question you asked on the prior page, which is, did it seem as though the witnesses were telling the truth. All of those things, assessing demeanor, bias, are encapsulated within the questions that your Honor asked immediately prior to that. We don't think anything additional is necessary.

THE COURT: I think that the parties during their closings can raise questions as to certain testimony of certain witnesses and the motivations of those witnesses and let the jury assess that using the list of items that are already there and anything else that they want to bring from their personal experience. So I'm going to leave it the way it is, thank you.

Before we bring the jury in, when everyone is here, let me just address everyone in the courtroom about courtroom decorum.

No comments, expressions of approval or disapproval, or any other statements or sounds of any kind are permitted during closing arguments. I understand that people feel very strongly about certain matters that are at issue in this case, but the purpose of closing argument is for the jury to understand the arguments of the lawyers and not to hear from anyone else.

Also, if it's necessary for us to take a sidebar, which I hope it won't be, with the jury in the box, you may stand to stretch wherever you're seated, but there is to be no conversations. If people carry on conversations, they will be asked by the CSOs to leave and they will not be permitted to return. And they will be able to watch the balance of the closing arguments in the over-flow room, which I understand is pretty crowded already.

Finally, please do not leave the courtroom while the closings are in progress except in an emergency. I don't want people walking in and out of the courtroom during oral argument. It's a distraction to the attorneys. It's a distraction to the jury. And it's not appropriate.

Those are my instructions to everyone in the room. I'm sure you'll follow those instructions. Thank you.

Ms. Penza, I'll ask the question one more time, how long do you think your closing will take?

MS. PENZA: Estimating four hours.

THE COURT: All right. Is there a point at the mid point more or less where we could take a ten-minute break for the jury?

MS. PENZA: Certainly, your Honor. May I suggest that when I get to such a place?

THE COURT: Yes, if you would.

MS. PENZA: Thank you.

THE COURT: We're going to check on the jury and get right back to you.

(The Court exits the courtroom.)

(Brief recess.)

Continue to next page2.Closing Argument — Prosecution