2.Tourette's Claims Excluded from Vicente Cross-Examination
36 linesMR. LESKO: Objection.
MR. AGNIFILO: Your Honor, could we approach?
THE COURT: Why don't we not do that. Let's take our mid-morning break.
All rise.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: The witness may stand down. Do not discuss your testimony.
(Witness steps down.)
THE COURT: All right. Everyone may be seated.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, we object to any mention of the Tourette's film. It's going to lead to claims that the inquiry had an effect on Tourette's. Some of the, I believe, participants in the film have subsequently expressed concerns about their depiction in the film.
I believe, Your Honor, has addressed this issue in a ruling. This is a -- this is a completely irrelevant collateral matter and really it -- we're objecting to it.
It's an attempt to try to show that the defendant was involved in good things that are completely irrelevant from what we are talking about in this case. And for all those reasons and anything anyone wants to add.
THE COURT: All right. I hear you, yes.
MR. AGNIFILO: Well, first of all, I don't think it's irrelevant that defendant was involved in good things. I think it's very relevant that he was involved in good things and I'm surprised that the Department of Justice is afraid to bring out things that are true that defendant did that's good. I think that's absolutely fair ground.
Some of the reason people stayed in NXIVM, they weren't in NXIVM because they were brainwashed. They were in NXIVM because they believed they were doing good things, and one of the things that was good is it did have a way to address the effects of Tourette's and people have the right to notice that, and have the right to stay with organizations that they believe are doing good work.
So to the larger objection, which I have to say, I'm sorry I developed a concern that the government wants to basically cut our legs out from under us so that we can't put in anything that is positive about the defendant, so that they can put in, you know, this is going to be a one-sided case. So I have concerns about that.
The more immediate concern, though, Judge, this man -- and he can describe it any way he wants, is basically going around town with a film crew, exerting pressure on people. It is unwanted pressure.
I don't think India Oxenberg wanted him and a film crew coming to her restaurant after the situation that they had at her house earlier. I don't think the people in Vermont, who are trying to film a movie, screen a movie, want him and his film crew traveling to Vermont -- from my information is that they tried to gain access with the film crew into the screening of My Tourette's movie.
And Mark Vicente's role as an agent for the destruction of NXIVM, is absolutely relevant and -- and I think I have every right to bring that out. To not let me, Your Honor, is to forestall an entire part of our defense and this didn't just happen.
Mark Vicente, for whatever his own perceptions are, and I think the jury is starting to get a sense of that thought -- thought, genuinely or not genuinely, this was a bad thing that had to be brought up. That's his right, I suppose.
But he did certain things to bring that about and one of the things that he did to bring that about is he went around town and out of town with a film crew. And that is a pressure-filled environment. That's not even like being approached to be interviewed. All of sudden you walk out of It's Your Life and there's a movie camera in your face. That's pressure.
He went to Vermont, not with good intentions, not because he was afraid. What he testified on cross-examination, I think, is implausible, that he went to Vermont with a camera crew because he was afraid for his life. He didn't bring a camera crew because he was afraid for his life. He was prompting -- he was prompting confrontations and he wanted to capture them on tape. And that's why he went and he went for a reason.
He brought -- and it came out in direct. I didn't bring it up for the first time. I'm following up on something that he testified to on direct.
This isn't a long topic. I can do this in a few minutes.
MR. LESKO: That's a wonderful argument. I imagine we'll hear it again in summation. This the defendant's case. This is the defendant trying to bootstrap through cross-examination their case in chief. They can put on a case. They can call witnesses about this.
And let's be honest about the Tourette's film. They want to establish through this witness in testimony that is well beyond the scope of the direct examination, that NXIVM cures Tourette's. That's what they want to establish here, and they want to be able to argue that to the jury, as some sort of argument that what Mr. Raniere was doing was good.
We are -- we don't believe the truth of that. We don't believe that NXIVM had any role in curing Tourette's whatsoever. But that's precisely what Mr. Agnifilo is trying to do here.
It's a side show. It's a collateral matter. It's -- if he wants to try to establish it in his defense case, have at it. But in cross-examination of this witness, I think it's totally inappropriate.
I will say, though, if they want -- if I understand their theory. The subject matter of the film is irrelevant. I don't think we have any objection to -- to cross-examining Mr. Vicente about attempts to talk to a filmmaker about a film. But what that film was about, we think is irrelevant.
MR. AGNIFILO: Can I just talk about the -- this is the direct examination, question and answer. It's on page 667, starts at line 20: Question, by Mr. Lesko.
"QUESTION: Was there a understanding at NXIVM about claims that programs offered by NXIVM could result in health benefits?"
Answer on direct examination.
"ANSWER: Well, it was talked about. It was generally accepted that, yes, that is what it did. But we were told, you know, don't make those claims. Be very, very careful that you don't suggest that this thing will do that even though, you know, the experience we had, that there was clear evidence that, yes, it actually did do that, you know. Yes. It removed headaches and it could change panic attacks and it could do all kinds of things."
Direct examination.
"It can do all kinds of things that actually did have a physical benefit, but we're instructed not to make that claim."
They got into this. They got into this on direct examination.
MR. LESKO: He didn't mention Tourette's and there was no discussion about attempt to contact a filmmaker at a film festival in Vermont many, many months after he left NXIVM. We very -- so the remoteness of time and the nature of the content and he did not mention Tourette's whatsoever in his direct examination.
So, again, I mean, this is a side show.
THE COURT: This wasn't about headaches. This was about Tourette's.
MR. AGNIFILO: No, he said "and all kinds of things." I can say --
THE COURT: Well, I mean, yeah.
Are you going to claim he could -- he figured out how to cure cancer?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, but this is --
THE COURT: Is this -- my point -- the point is that I'm not going to make light in this trial of the question of whether, you know, your client figured out how to cure Tourette's, which had is serious illness. If you want to make that claim, make it on your case. We're not going into it.
Tourette's is out.
So if you want to talk about him taking his camera around to confront people or to, you know, that he used this as a tool to get people to see things his way, you know, I think that's fair game.
But we're not going into the curing of Tourette's in this case. It is not part of the case, unless you decide to make it that, if you put on a case. That's the end of the discussion.
We'll take ten minutes.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at 11:36 a.m.)
(In open court; outside the presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: All right. Let's bring the witness in.
About how much longer? Will you be done this morning?
MR. AGNIFILO: Ten minutes. Ten minutes.
THE COURT: Ten minutes. All right.
MR. AGNIFILO: Mr. Lesko has permission to throw something at me at the ten-minute mark. I would give Your Honor permission, but, Your Honor might actually do it.
THE COURT: All right.
(Pause in proceedings.)
(The witness resumes the witness stand.)
THE COURT: All right. Let's bring in the jurors, please.
(Pause in proceedings.)
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
(Jury present.)
THE COURT: Please be seated everyone.
You may continue your cross-examination, Mr. Agnifilo.
MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you.
THE COURT: The witness is reminded he is still under oath.
MARK VICENTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.