Skip to content
NXIVM— Case Archive
2019 Federal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayMark LeskoMarc AgnifiloMark VicentedirectcrossDay 6 - May 15, 2019Mark Vicente completed direct testimony about leaving NXIVM, then faced cross-examination about documentary work, finances, collateral, and his former loyalty to Raniere. The defense also questioned his recollections concerning videotape alterations and earlier accusations against Barbara Bouchey.
← Day 52019 Federal TrialDay 7 →

Day 6 - May 15, 2019

Vicente Describes NXIVM Departure and Faces Cross-Examination

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
7Proceedings
4Pages
1Witnesses
2,544Lines
9Sidebars
Day 6 of 29
Appearing:
Mark Lesko Marc Agnifilo Mark Vicente

Mark Vicente completed direct testimony about leaving NXIVM, then faced cross-examination about documentary work, finances, collateral, and his former loyalty to Raniere. The defense also questioned his recollections concerning videotape alterations and earlier accusations against Barbara Bouchey.

Full day summary

Mark Vicente completed direct examination by describing his growing doubts about Keith Raniere and departure from NXIVM. He said his resignation letters gave a career explanation that was only half true because he feared retaliation. He also described efforts to warn women about a planned branding ceremony and contact the FBI. The court repeatedly instructed jurors that statements Vicente attributed to Sarah, Kayla, and J were admitted only for their effect on him, not for their truth. The court admitted Sarah's brand image, Dropbox-related materials, photographs, and an SOP recording. A letter to J was admitted conditionally, subject to connection through her testimony. Vicente distinguished SOP monetary commitments from DOS nude photographs and said he was unaware of SOP requests or orders to have sex with Raniere. On cross-examination, Marc Agnifilo questioned Vicente about documentary work, NXIVM finances, and his former loyalty to Raniere. Vicente distinguished payment for materials and shooting from payment to appear in a documentary. After reviewing material concerning an FBI interview, he acknowledged an initial primary production role. Asked about his accusations against Barbara Bouchey, he said he had believed what others told him and could not precisely recall the factual basis for some accusations. Vicente disputed the defense's interpretation of collateral but said he did not believe Raniere had threatened him or threatened to release his collateral. Questioning about videotape alterations covered differing dates in an FBI report and the sources of Vicente's understanding of their litigation use. He also withdrew an explanation after realizing he had not authored an email. The court required paper copies of documents used to refresh recollection. The parties' dispute over delivery of Defense Exhibit 332 remained unresolved. Cross-examination was scheduled to continue the next morning.

1. Mark Vicente — Direct (Part 6)

Mark Vicente concluded direct testimony about his departure from NXIVM, efforts to warn women about branding, and concerns about Raniere. The court limited how jurors could use others’ accounts he recounted.

→
Procedural
File-Box Evidence Admissibility
13 lines
sidebar
Sidebar Conference Held
1 lines

The reporter recorded that a sidebar conference took place but transcribed no dialogue.

Procedural
Return to Open Court for Vicente's Testimony
20 lines
Direct
Mark Vicente — Direct Mark Vicente Mark Lesko
613 lines

Mark Vicente described leaving NXIVM after learning about DOS collateral and branding. The court limited secondhand accounts, admitted photographs and recordings, and resolved contested exhibit-foundation issues.

3 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Limited Use of Statements to VicenteLesko raised the admissibility of statements Vicente received from non-co-conspirators about a secret society.
  2. Spanish-Language Document Admitted Subject to ConnectionCounsel debated admitting a Spanish-language document before J explained it, with Agnifilo objecting that its contents were unknown.
  3. Foundation for Disputed Conversation TranscriptCounsel disputed a conversation transcript’s authorship, accuracy, and admissibility, including whether it could instead be used to refresh the witness’s recollection.

Highlights

Mark Vicente — Direct“So I was at this point holding him still in some sort of sacred place in my mind. This was the first time I began wondering, what if based on the information I'm getting, I'm hearing things that I believe are lies, and what if he's not the person I think he is.”— Mark VicenteDescribes Vicente's account of the difficulty of questioning Raniere despite growing doubts.Mark Vicente — Directtestimony highlightAfter an instruction limiting Sarah's statements to their effect on Vicente, he recounted her disclosures about collateral and branding. Counsel clarified that his trafficking characterization was his conclusion, not legal advice.Mark Vicente — DirectadmissionVicente described sending three resignation letters and acknowledged that their career explanation was only half true because he feared retaliation. The court directed jurors to disregard his comparison to terrorist cells.

2. Mark Vicente — Cross (Part 7)

Mark Vicente’s cross-examination covered documentary filmmaking, NXIVM finances, and his reasons for remaining in the organization. The court limited questioning about the Mexican program and excluded a defense exhibit as hearsay.

→
Cross
Mark Vicente — Cross Mark Vicente Marc Agnifilo
538 lines

The defense tested Vicente's documentary payments, prior statements, and NXIVM finances. Vicente distinguished paid materials from paid participation. The court limited Mexico-project questioning and rejected an email as hearsay while allowing its use to refresh recollection.

2 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Cross-Examination About the Mexico Film ProjectCounsel disputed whether questioning Vicente about the Mexico film project concerned his reasons for remaining in NXIVM or would stray into Raniere’s alleged good works.
  2. Email Hearsay and Refreshing RecollectionLesko objected to admitting an email as hearsay, while Agnifilo argued that it showed connections among people in SOP.

Highlights

Mark Vicente — CrossimpeachmentAfter initially rejecting the description of a primary production role, Vicente reviewed 35800MV53 and acknowledged that description applied at the beginning. He described shooting discussions, activities, B-roll, and drone footage in LA.

3. Defense Disclosure Obligations Under Rules 612 and 16

The court addressed disclosure of defense cross-examination materials and ordered paper copies of documents used to refresh recollection. A dispute over delivery of Defense exhibit 332 remained unresolved.

→
Procedural
Defense Disclosure Obligations Under Rules 612 and 16
54 lines

The parties disputed disclosure duties under Rules 612 and 16. The court addressed new-subject questioning and required paper copies of documents used to refresh recollection.

4. Mark Vicente — Cross (Part 8)

Mark Vicente's cross-examination continued with questions about his former loyalty to Keith Raniere, accusations against Barbara Bouchey, collateral, and disputed documents and recordings.

→
Cross
Mark Vicente — Cross (Resumed) Mark Vicente Marc Agnifilo
1305 lines

The defense tested Vicente's prior accusations, collateral testimony, and account of videotape alterations. He qualified his sources and dates, acknowledged voluntary Fiji travel, and corrected an explanation based on mistaken email authorship.

3 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Using Defense Exhibit 343 to Refresh RecollectionProsecutors did not oppose using Defense Exhibit 343 to refresh the witness’s recollection but objected to describing it as a typical questionnaire.
  2. Objection to Fiji Photographs in Defense Exhibit 328The government challenged the relevance and appropriateness of Fiji photographs and raised cumulative-evidence concerns, while the defense argued the images countered descriptions of abuse.
  3. Hearsay Dispute Over Document’s 2006 DateDefense counsel argued that a document was offered only to establish a 2006 date, and the discussion also addressed the remaining length of witness questioning.

Highlights

Mark Vicente — Cross (Resumed)confrontationChallenged about the factual basis for his criminal complaint against Barbara Bouchey, Vicente said he had believed what he was told and could not precisely recall whether he had the underlying facts.Mark Vicente — Cross (Resumed)“In that system at the time, I believed everything I was told and I acted accordingly.”— Mark VicenteVicente explained his past reliance on others when challenged about accusations in his letter to the district attorney.Mark Vicente — Cross (Resumed)admissionVicente described his concerns about the framing of collateral but said he did not believe Raniere had threatened him or threatened to release his collateral.Mark Vicente — Cross (Resumed)impeachmentThe defense confronted Vicente with an FBI report giving a 2009 or 2010 date rather than June 2008 and questioned whether he had omitted work at his home. Vicente acknowledged the reported date but qualified his recollection and denied concealing wrongdoing.
← Day 52019 Federal TrialDay 7 →