Skip to content
2019 Federal TrialtranscripttranscriptDefense Motion Over Limits on Salzman's Cross-Examination Denied - Day 28 - 2019 Federal TrialThe court denied a defense motion concerning Salzman’s cross-examination and prosecution rebuttal comments, then addressed delivery of exhibits, the charge, and the verdict sheet to the jury.
Moira Kim PenzaMarc AgnifiloNicholas G. GaraufisTHE COURTMS. PENZAMR. AGNIFILOprocedural
4 pages·0 witnesses·198 lines
The jury found Keith Raniere guilty on all seven counts and all eleven racketeering acts proved. Before the verdict, the court denied a defense motion concerning Lauren Salzman's cross-examination and gave a supplemental instruction on Internet use and interstate commerce.
← Day 27Day 29 →
Defense Motion Over Limits on Salzman's Cross-Examination Denied
ProceduralProc.Defense Motion Over Limits on Salzman's Cross-Examination Denied

THE COURT: I have a letter from the defense, did you see the letter?

MS. PENZA: We did, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any comments on the letter?

MS. PENZA: We believe it should be denied, your Honor. We don't believe the cross-examination was cut short. Mr. Agnifilio said that he was finished during Lauren Salzman's cross, and we don't believe that Mr. Lesko's comments during rebuttal created any problems. And the cooperation agreement, I would also say, is in evidence.

And as your Honor has instructed the jurors many times, the arguments of the attorneys are not evidence.

MR. AGNIFILO: Just in response to one thing -- I stand on the letters that we submitted.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. AGNIFILO: My cross-examination was not finished. When we broke I asked why your Honor cut off any cross-examination. I asked that because Ms. Penza said she thought my cross-examination was finished; I was not finished, I was ordered to finish and I followed the Court's order.

MS. PENZA: I disagree. I think he said, "I'm done." Then your Honor said, "I said you're done," but he had already said he was done.

THE COURT: The point is, if this were a letter requesting to reopen cross-examination in a timely fashion, I would have considered it. But we've already charged the jury and five weeks have gone by since that day and I didn't receive a request in writing or orally to reopen cross-examination of Lauren Salzman. So it's too little too late. I would have considered it. We could have discussed it.

And whether or not you were done, or you wanted to continue the next day, which you told me you were going to finish by the end of the day, it was about ten to five at the time I instructed you to sit down, because you were not following my instructions about the questions you were asking, and placing the witness in some peril of having a breakdown, as I pointed out at the time.

You could have asked, but you didn't. So the motion is denied. And you have your record.

MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you, Judge. Just so the record is clear --

THE COURT: There is more?

MR. AGNIFILO: We filed a mistrial motion at the time.

THE COURT: No, no that's different. You filed a mistrial motion. You didn't file a motion to reopen cross-examination. Those are two different things.

Here you're talking about all the things you were planning to discuss between ten to five and 5:00 o'clock, all right, and that was about something else. That was about your relationship with the jury being injured, allegedly.

All I can remember from the balance of this trial for the last five weeks is that that jury listened attentively to your questions and listened attentively to your closing argument.

So let me make my record. My record is that that had no affect that I can discern on the part of that jury. That jury listened very carefully to you, as they should have, because you're very capable lawyer and you're doing a very good job. That's it. Come back when you're ready.

(Judge exits courtroom.)

(Brief recess.)

THE COURT: Please be seated. How are we doing?

MS. PENZA: We are good. We're going to -- I think ready to send back the exhibits. We think the list is going to take about an hour to finalized, but we agree that it should go back now to the jury.

MR. AGNIFILO: We agree.

THE COURT: That's fine. The charge and the verdict sheet are going to back in a few minutes as well.

Anything else for now?

MS. PENZA: I don't think so. When the exhibit list is ready should we --

THE COURT: Just give it to Mr. Reccoppa, he'll send it back as long as you have agreed to it.

MR. AGNIFILO: Were we able to make the changes?

THE COURT: I believe so. We made all the changes, all the corrections, including the word common. But I'll go back and double check before we give it to the jury. My clerk was making changes as we delivered the charge. The word common that you wanted placed in there.

We have a note from the jury. Here is the first message from the jury: "Needs paperwork."

So I suggest that we immediately respond by delivering the paperwork.

I'll double check on that, but I'm pretty sure we're all set. I'll make sure both sides get a copy of what will go into the jury.

MR. AGNIFILO: That's great, thank you.

THE COURT: Now as I said to the jury, between one and two we're not going to be responding to them. But if you go somewhere, even if it's for a few minutes please leave your cellphone number with Mr. Reccoppa, so we can reach out to you in an emergency. Thank you.

(Judge exits courtroom.)

(Brief recess.)

Continue to next page3.Supplemental-Charge Conference on Internet Use and Interstate Commerce