Michelle Healy — Direct/Cross
529 linesDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MENNINGER:
MS. MENNINGER: Good afternoon, Ms. Healy.
MICHELLE HEALY: Good afternoon.
MS. MENNINGER: How old are you?
MICHELLE HEALY: I'm 47.
MS. MENNINGER: And where do you live?
MICHELLE HEALY: I live in Dallas, Texas.
MS. MENNINGER: Are you married?
MICHELLE HEALY: I am.
MS. MENNINGER: And what do you do for a living?
MICHELLE HEALY: I'm a housewife.
MS. MENNINGER: What does your husband do?
MICHELLE HEALY: He's an architect.
MS. MENNINGER: There in Texas?
MICHELLE HEALY: No, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
MS. MENNINGER: And do you have any siblings?
MICHELLE HEALY: I have a sister.
MS. MENNINGER: What's her name?
MICHELLE HEALY: Shannon.
MS. MENNINGER: And where does she live?
MICHELLE HEALY: She lives in Albuquerque.
MS. MENNINGER: Was there a point in time in which you lived in New York?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: When was that?
MICHELLE HEALY: I'm born and raised in New York. I grew up on Long Island. So 1974 to about 1999.
MS. MENNINGER: And I want to direct your attention to years around the mid '90s, to '96 or so.
MICHELLE HEALY: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Where were you working in around 1996?
MICHELLE HEALY: J. Epstein and Company.
MS. MENNINGER: And how did it come to pass that you were working at J. Epstein and Company?
MICHELLE HEALY: How did I receive the job?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
MICHELLE HEALY: Needed somebody to fill in. My sister was working there, so I just filled in. I had a previous job that I was working at, so I was just there to fill in.
MS. MENNINGER: Great. So what was your previous job?
MICHELLE HEALY: I was working at Pete's Tavern.
MS. MENNINGER: And I think you said your sister was working at J. Epstein; is that right?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes, she was a receptionist.
MS. MENNINGER: And at some point did someone ask you to come fill in? Do you know who that was?
MICHELLE HEALY: I can't recall that.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. But your sister was working there before you?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: And when you came to fill in, what job did you do when you came to fill in at J. Epstein and Company?
MICHELLE HEALY: Just errands.
MS. MENNINGER: And where was J. Epstein and Company?
MICHELLE HEALY: 457 Madison Avenue.
MS. MENNINGER: How long did you end up working at J. Epstein and Company?
MICHELLE HEALY: I think I was there from 1996 until about 1999.
MS. MENNINGER: And where did you go in 1999?
MICHELLE HEALY: I went to New Mexico.
MS. MENNINGER: So just focusing on that period of time, 1996 to 1999, while you were working at J. Epstein and Company, did you meet Jeffrey Epstein?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: How did you meet him?
MICHELLE HEALY: He was my boss.
MS. MENNINGER: And what were your roles and responsibilities during that entire three-year period?
MICHELLE HEALY: I was receptionist for a good part of the time. So I did errands, answered phones, and then I was his assistant for a bit. So really running around New York City working for my bosses.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. And when you were working as a receptionist, where were you situated within the office?
MICHELLE HEALY: So if you walk into the office, you come out of the elevator, I'm the first desk. I'm the first person that you would have seen.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. So if people came to visit the office in that time period, you were the first person that they would see?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: And when you were working as Mr. Epstein's assistant, were you in a -- sitting in a different place in the office?
MICHELLE HEALY: I was just in the front of the office.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
MICHELLE HEALY: So --
MS. MENNINGER: And also when you're sitting in the front of the office, could visitors see you when they came to visit?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: Can you remember the names of some of your coworkers when you worked in the office between '96 and '99?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes. There was Kimberly, there was Lauren, there was Eric, there was Darren, there was Jeff, and that's about all I can remember.
MS. MENNINGER: Did you ever meet Ghislaine Maxwell?
MICHELLE HEALY: I did.
MS. MENNINGER: And who was she?
MICHELLE HEALY: She was my boss as well.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you see her in the courtroom?
MICHELLE HEALY: I do.
MS. MENNINGER: And where is she and what is she wearing?
MICHELLE HEALY: She is right there, and she's wearing a black mask.
MS. MENNINGER: If the record could reflect identification of Ghislaine Maxwell.
JUDGE NATHAN: It may so reflect.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you.
MS. MENNINGER: What kinds of things did you see Ghislaine doing in the office?
MICHELLE HEALY: She oversaw properties and decorating and, you know, that kind of stuff.
MS. MENNINGER: Were you reporting directly to her?
MICHELLE HEALY: I reported to her and I reported to Jeffrey as well.
MS. MENNINGER: And when you talked about running all over New York, what kinds of things were you doing in your roles running around New York?
MICHELLE HEALY: To be quite honest, it's a long time ago. If documents needed to be dropped off or picked up or just really -- I really can't answer it because it's so long ago, to be quite honest.
MS. MENNINGER: And how old were you in '96?
MICHELLE HEALY: I was born in 1974, so in my twenties.
MS. MENNINGER: What were your impressions of Ghislaine Maxwell as a boss?
MICHELLE HEALY: She's fantastic.
MS. MENNINGER: Why do you say that?
MICHELLE HEALY: She taught me a lot. I respected her. She was tough. But she was great.
MS. MENNINGER: Did she ever tell you not to look people in the eye when you were talking to them?
MS. MENNINGER: Did she ever give you directions about how you should speak to other people?
MS. MENNINGER: In your capacity of running around, did you ever work out of any other location besides 457 Madison?
MS. MENNINGER: Did you ever go to any of Mr. Epstein's properties?
MICHELLE HEALY: The only time I went, I went to Zorro Ranch. My sister got into a very bad car accident and broke her jaw. And Ghislaine was kind enough to take me there. I was working, but at least to set eyes on my sister because she was so hurt.
MS. MENNINGER: And where was your sister working at that time?
MICHELLE HEALY: She was on the ranch.
MS. MENNINGER: And do you know how long she worked on the ranch?
MICHELLE HEALY: I don't.
MS. MENNINGER: Was it a short period of time or multiple years?
MICHELLE HEALY: It was multiple years.
MS. MENNINGER: And this accident that you described her being injured, that happened while she was working at Zorro Ranch?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: And is that the time that you went to visit her?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes. And that's the only time that I went anywhere.
MS. MENNINGER: I want to ask you a little bit about some of the other people. Did you come to know a woman named Emmy Tayler?
MICHELLE HEALY: I did.
MS. MENNINGER: And do you know where Emmy Tayler was from?
MICHELLE HEALY: I think London.
MS. MENNINGER: Did she have an accent?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: Did you socialize with Ms. Tayler?
MICHELLE HEALY: I did.
MS. MENNINGER: And can you just kind of describe what types of things you and Ms. Tayler would do together?
MICHELLE HEALY: We were friends. You know, we would go out. You know, again, it's so long ago.
MS. MENNINGER: Was she about your age?
MICHELLE HEALY: I think so.
MS. MENNINGER: And you guys hung out together just in the city --
MICHELLE HEALY: Yeah. Not on a regular basis, but did I socialize with her on occasion? Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: I want to show the witness and the Court only an exhibit that's been previously entered under seal, Government Exhibit 12.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Just the witness and the Court.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: And Michelle, I'm going to ask you to take a look at this document, not read anything out loud, but just take a look at it and see if you see a name listed there.
MICHELLE HEALY: I do.
MS. MENNINGER: Okay. And without saying the name, I want to direct you that we're going to refer to that person as Jane, okay?
MICHELLE HEALY: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: And so I'll refer to her as Jane, and you should only refer to her as Jane.
MICHELLE HEALY: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you recognize Jane's real name?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: Is that someone that you met?
MICHELLE HEALY: I did meet her.
MS. MENNINGER: Where do you recall meeting Jane?
MICHELLE HEALY: In the office. I was told that it was Jeffrey's goddaughter.
MS. MENNINGER: And you were in the office and she was in the office?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: Do you remember her being with anyone else when she came to the office?
MICHELLE HEALY: I know her mom --
MS. MENNINGER: And don't say her mom's name.
MICHELLE HEALY: No. I know her mom. Her mom would come in quite frequently, if I remember correctly. But I didn't see much of Jane.
MS. MENNINGER: And do you remember getting phone calls from either Jane or her mother that you answered?
MICHELLE HEALY: The mother would call to speak to Jeffrey; but Jane, no.
MS. MENNINGER: How old did Jane appear to you when you saw her in the office?
MICHELLE HEALY: I never even thought about it. She looked like a grown-up to me.
MS. MENNINGER: Was she wearing makeup and --
MICHELLE HEALY: She had a lot of makeup on.
MS. MENNINGER: Did you ever socialize with Jane?
MICHELLE HEALY: When I was out with Emmy. Emmy was closer to her, like I -- I didn't socialize with Jane. But on occasion, maybe twice, she would have been there. But, again, it wasn't on like a -- I didn't even have her phone number, let's just put it that way.
MS. MENNINGER: At the time you were working at J. Epstein and Company and hanging out with Emmy in the late '90s in New York, was there any other Michelle that you saw in the office, for example?
MS. MENNINGER: Was there any other Michelle that hung out with Emmy that you are aware of?
MICHELLE HEALY: Not that I'm aware of. But she had a lot of friends, so I -- I can't speak for her.
MS. MENNINGER: Was there any other Michelle that you saw when you saw Emmy with Jane?
MICHELLE HEALY: Not that I can recall.
MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry to ask you this, but were you ever involved in any group sexualized massages with Jane?
MICHELLE HEALY: Absolutely not.
MS. MENNINGER: Were you ever involved in any group sexualized massages with Jeffrey Epstein?
MICHELLE HEALY: Absolutely not.
MS. MENNINGER: Did you have anything to do with massages in your job with Jeffrey Epstein or anyone around the office that you met through Jeffrey Epstein?
MICHELLE HEALY: Absolutely not.
MS. MENNINGER: Have you been contacted by the FBI to speak to them in connection with this case?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: When was the first time they contacted you?
MICHELLE HEALY: I can't give you the exact date.
MS. MENNINGER: Was it within the last week?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: If I could have one moment, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Counsel conferred)
MS. MENNINGER: No further questions, your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Comey?
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Good afternoon.
MICHELLE HEALY: Good afternoon.
MS. COMEY: Are you the only Michelle in the world?
MICHELLE HEALY: I hope not.
MS. COMEY: Have you met other people named Michelle?
MICHELLE HEALY: I sure have.
MS. COMEY: Okay. Do you know the first name of every person that Jeffrey Epstein interacted with in the late '90s?
MS. COMEY: Do you know whether he had masseuses named Michelle?
MS. COMEY: You worked in Jeffrey Epstein's office; correct?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. COMEY: You did not work in any of his homes; is that right?
MS. COMEY: You've never visited his Palm Beach house, have you?
MICHELLE HEALY: Nope.
MS. COMEY: Just got to finish the question so the court reporter can get it all down. So just let me finish, okay? You've never been to the Palm Beach house; is that right?
MICHELLE HEALY: Correct.
MS. COMEY: Okay. Have you ever been to his New York residence?
MICHELLE HEALY: Just to drop off documents, but never spent any time there. It was just you delivered something.
MS. COMEY: So you were never a guest at that home?
MS. COMEY: Never stayed over at that home?
MS. COMEY: Never went beyond the front entrance of that home?
MS. COMEY: Okay. And the only home you've ever been inside of was on Zorro Ranch one time?
MICHELLE HEALY: Yes.
MS. COMEY: You never flew on any of Jeffrey Epstein's private planes, did you?
MS. COMEY: You never traveled with Jeffrey Epstein, did you?
MS. COMEY: May I have a moment, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
(Counsel conferred)
MS. COMEY: Nothing further.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: No redirect. Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Healy. You may step down. You are excused. Thank you.
(Witness excused)
JUDGE NATHAN: And we'll break for lunch, members of the jury. Ms. Healy, if you could just step this way. Thank you. And then, members of the jury, enjoy your lunch. We'll see you in about an hour. Thank you.
(Jury not present)
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Let's see. Matters to take up.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. We just wanted to follow up on an issue we'd raised this morning about confirming that AUSA Alex Rossmiller has been released from defense subpoena.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Menninger.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Given the Court's rulings, your Honor, I don't really think there would be any need to have them under subpoena. So, yes, the answer is yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Other matters?
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think just over the lunch break the parties are going to confer over some stipulations. And we should hopefully have things hammered out on those when we return. But we'll use the lunch break to do that. We may ask for a little bit more time just to get everything written down and marked properly, but that's the next task.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. I think this is yours, Ms. Menninger. So I will look at during lunch break the application that came in a little before noon for assistance of the marshals to enforce the trial subpoena. And I think we just got the letter from the government. Just quickly, Ms. Menninger, I think your -- I just looked very briefly at your declaration, and it indicated that you've made efforts to contact this witness, but there's no details. Do you know if the witness is represented?
MS. MENNINGER: I do not.
JUDGE NATHAN: Could you pull up the mic. Thank you.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I don't believe the witness is represented in connection with this case.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: There was no counsel appointed for this witness as there were with other witnesses.
JUDGE NATHAN: And so the efforts made to contact the witness consisted of what?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I was not the one doing it myself. I can get the detail from my assistants who were making the calls, and also our investigator that was making the calls. I can get the dates and times of the calls. I don't have that on me at the moment.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. I think I need to understand, since I'm -- given where we are and what I'm -- in the trial, and I see that the subpoena -- so the subpoena was -- the return date was for the first day of trial. So I would like details as to what efforts were made to contact the witness. I guess the other question is the testimony that you're seeking from this witness is the same essentially as the last two witnesses?
MS. MENNINGER: It's very similar, your Honor. There's only one distinction with this one. On this one, Jane told the government early on that Kelly could confirm her story about what was going on. That's in the 3500. I can pull up the exact verbiage. And she also gave the woman's last name. So it was highly specific reference that this -- she also said that this person was involved in the massages in a way that the last two witnesses were claimed to have been.
JUDGE NATHAN: When did you receive that 3500 material?
MS. MENNINGER: That would probably have been on October 11th, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. And Ms. Moe, did you have something?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I was just going to clarify. I think Ms. Menninger is referring to the 3500 materials. With respect to the matters that are before the jury, the testimony was about a Kelly. So in that respect, the testimony would have to mirror the past two witnesses about are you a person named Kelly. But I recognize the Court's question was about 3500 material. And when the defense was on notice of this issue, I just want to clarify in terms of the anticipated scope of the testimony. I can't imagine, given that record and cross-examination of Jane and the Court's other rulings about investigative steps, that there would be anything other than what we've just seen now twice.
MS. MENNINGER: Actually, I asked one other question of Jane, which was, Do you recall her last name? Because I had it --
JUDGE NATHAN: And she said yes, if I remember, and then you didn't ask --
MS. MENNINGER: Well, at the time, because I was not in touch with that witness, I didn't know if we were going to move to have her testify under her first name, given --
JUDGE NATHAN: And did you so move?
MS. MENNINGER: I did not with respect to this witness because I hadn't spoken to her. The witnesses that we've moved --
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. But so you've never sought anonymity with respect to this witness.
MS. MENNINGER: That's correct.
MS. MOE: I also add, your Honor, that when defense counsel wanted to put in the record the first and last names of folks when there were sensitivities, they wrote them down on a piece of paper. There were a million different ways to get that before the jury, and they chose not to.
MS. MENNINGER: I understand that the cross -- or the direct would be based on what the questions were of Jane. I'm not here to dispute that. I'm just telling the Court in terms of who it is. She told the government the last name and what she told the government.
JUDGE NATHAN: I understand. Which just indicates that the defense has been on notice of this person, which I presume is what -- since October, as someone who Jane indicated was involved in the sexualized massages. I presume that's why you noticed this person Kelly as a defense witness and issued a trial subpoena weeks ago.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. I can make a representation about the number of names that were mentioned in the volumes of 3500 material. I know your Honor has received the testifying Witness 1, but I can tell your Honor there was approximately 500 nontestifying witnesses with similar volumes of interviews with those individuals. So the fact that we received it on October 11th doesn't mean that's the day we saw this.
JUDGE NATHAN: Of course. Fair enough. I'm just trying to understand why I got an application at 11:54, it was almost -- 11:54, seeking enforcement of a trial subpoena regarding a witness who's been disclosed, a potential defense witness who's been disclosed for months, who the defense noticed and attempted to serve a subpoena on, who, unlike the other witnesses the defense attempted to serve a subpoena on, you received no contact. I know you're busy. I get that. You have a million -- and I mean that genuinely, obviously. I know this team -- both teams are working extremely hard. This one is just a little hard to understand, unless maybe you thought I would exclude the witness.
(Continued on next page)
MS. MENNINGER: That was an application, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: It was an application. It was an application that you asked to respond to at -- I think it was 6 o'clock last night. So I didn't get your response on that until 6 o'clock last night. I ruled as fast as I could, which meant last night, I think it was probably after 11:00 p.m. or close to midnight, but thought it was important to give that resolution as soon as I could once the issue was raised and I had full briefing. Even if there hadn't been an application to preclude that witness, you hadn't taken steps to enforce the subpoena until 11:55 a.m. today. I'm going to look at the materials, but I just want to have the factual record that I need to make a determination.
MS. MENNINGER: I can email chambers as soon as I gather the dates and times of the communication efforts. I can put that in a writing, this way your Honor has a factual record on it.
MS. MOE: Just with respect to developing a record on this issue, I just want to make sure it's clear that when we produced 3500 materials, we designated them for testifying witnesses, which was a much narrower scope. Accompanied with that, I think, earlier than October, was a letter identifying the particular victims in this case. The materials with respect to Jane talked about the very, very limited number of people who Jane recalled in particular being present for these group sessions. I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but I think it is just the people who Ms. Menninger asked about on cross examination and those particular first names. So I want to make sure the record is clear, that it's not the case that the 3500 materials had hundreds of names of people --
JUDGE NATHAN: Can you just give me one second. Sorry. Go ahead.
MS. MOE: I just want to make sure the record was clear that in the materials relating to Jane that we produced in October, it's not the case that those materials contain hundreds of names of people. In fact, it was, I want to say, five or fewer. But Ms. Menninger has those materials and it's a very narrative scope. So I just want to make sure the record is clear on that in terms of when the relevance of that would have become apparent and how specific it was.
JUDGE NATHAN: And the address or contact information that you used to try to contact this witness, do you have any basis -- what is the basis to the current contact information?
MS. MENNINGER: She was served personally by a process server, and with that handover, I believe she was handed the contact information to get in touch with us to be placed on call. We had a standard letter that we gave to all of the witnesses we've placed on call.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. I will look at it and see what the request is. The issue that you noted last night, Ms. Menninger, that you said needed to be done on Monday, what is that? There was something last night when we talked about the defense would likely finish today, you caveated that there was one small short matter that would be done on Monday, and I don't think I know what that is.
MS. MENNINGER: I think it's the witness from London, your Honor, that you discussed with Mr. Everdell earlier.
MR. EVERDELL: I believe that's what we were referring to.
JUDGE NATHAN: I didn't realize that.
MR. EVERDELL: I thought I actually said, your Honor, another witness, a short witness that we might need to put on on Monday.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's the same as what you caveated?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, Judge. That's when I said that we would make sure that we were finished so that we could go right into the closings.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, on that score, I did not realize that that was the same witness we were talking about this morning. If they were aware of this witness yesterday, that name was not on the witness list provided to the government, there weren't any 26.2 materials disclosed. So I think, from that record, they're aware of who this person was, they were planning on calling them on Monday, and had still not disclosed to the government they were planning to call this person or who they were. Just to echo our concern from this morning about why we're hearing about this so late and why the case would be held over for a late disclosed witness --
JUDGE NATHAN: What was the government's understanding of what they were referring to for Monday?
MS. MOE: We didn't know. And we were confused about the issue related to the person who had asked for anonymity who was a plainclothes police officer in the United Kingdom. So when defense referred to a witness potentially from the United Kingdom, that's what we thought that was referring to. We did not realize that was a reference to someone who had not been disclosed to the government.
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I believe the way the sequence worked, there was a different witness from the U.K. that, days ago, we said we might need to call, and anticipated Monday because of the number of witnesses we thought we were going to call. That is somebody different. Then, as we were talking about it, I believe the other day, I said there may be another short witness on Monday. I was referring to the same witness. We hadn't given the name of that person because, at that point, we were still trying to gather the information to see if he could be a witness. I didn't -- there was nothing to disclose at that point because we were still working this out to make sure we had this person lined up and they would be a witness with relevant admissible information. His 26.2 material would be a one-page or maybe a two-page declaration, which could be reviewed in 10 minutes, so I don't think that's an issue. The name of the person is sort of irrelevant. We said it was going to be a witness -- sorry, your Honor. And I believe the Court did say, I'm looking at the transcript on page 25 --
JUDGE NATHAN: This is from yesterday?
MR. EVERDELL: Yes, it's from December 16th, so that is yesterday, at page 2534, I had said, I think if we went over in the morning, even if we had this one witness, it would be very brief, so we could have almost a full day on Monday. The Court responds okay. So finishing tomorrow or a very short witness on Monday means closings on Monday and then a charge to the jury. Okay, I'll permit that, so long as it does not interfere with that schedule. So we were on the assumption that we could get this --
JUDGE NATHAN: I didn't know until now that that -- something in the course of the conversation, my memory of it is that it was Ms. Menninger who noted that there was one small thing that needed to be do on Monday. I didn't understand until this moment that that was the same person who you've raised this morning as a witness regarding Ms. Maxwell -- the timing of Ms. Maxwell's residence at the Kinnerton address.
MR. EVERDELL: Yes. And I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that, your Honor. I think there has been a lot going on, but I apologize about that. That was who I was referring to there because the other person who we had put the name on the witness list who is from the U.K., we had decided not to call that person before yesterday. It was this one that I was referring to. And I can even give the name now so we're not talking about an anonymous person.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. As I stand here, I still don't know who this person's name was and it hasn't been produced and the defense is out of witnesses. I think this is the definition of a delayed disclosure. We're at the conclusion of the defense's case and I'm learning for the first time the name of this witness. I still haven't received their 26.2 material. And it's clear the defense has been on notice of --
MR. EVERDELL: It's not true at all. We did not know about this witness until yesterday. His name is Kevin Moran, and he is the owner of the Nags Head Pub across the street from 44 Kinnerton Street. We did not know about him until very, very recently. I'll have to get the exact time. It was within the last day or two that we knew this about this person. And we actually had to confirm that he had relevant information before I proffered him as a witness in this case. And now we've been able to do that and that's the one when, yesterday, at the end of the day, I told the Court that we may have one additional witness, that's who I was referring to. Your Honor, actually, I'm sorry. It was yesterday because this issue came up after the property issue was discussed earlier in the day, and we felt like we had to find somebody who could establish her residency at 44 Kinnerton instead of not just her ownership. We were able to find Mr. Moran.
JUDGE NATHAN: I mean, again, I find it amusing, somehow. The government moved to preclude the ownership documents on Kinnerton.
MR. EVERDELL: I understand the Court's ruling and if that's the basis --
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm letting it in. I'm letting it. I queried the relevance of it because it was ownership, not residence, but I'm letting it in because I think you persuaded me that you can argue the inference of residence from ownership.
MR. EVERDELL: And, your Honor -- I'm sorry.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just -- all along, I gather that was what the defense intended to do, to establish timing of residence; correct?
MR. EVERDELL: That's right, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You didn't see a need to find other witnesses regarding --
MR. EVERDELL: And the reason why we had to is because that is what we were planning to do all along, to show when she was at that place. However, when we litigated this issue and discussed it yesterday, the Court -- the government raised the deposition transcript from the defendant who said, in sort of an offhand way, if you read the transcript, '92, '93 was when I was there. Then it became an issue of when she was actually residing there as opposed to when she owned it. We thought if the stipulation was going to have to involve that testimony, as well, we then now needed a witness, because the facts we believe to be true was that she was not only -- did not own it until then, she was not there, she did not reside there, she wasn't renting it. There was another couple that was in that house living there until she owned it, purchased it, and then owned it, and then moved in.
JUDGE NATHAN: So really, this is a new -- let me see if I get this right.
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if I can add one more thing. She had another residence in London prior to the Kinnerton Street residence.
JUDGE NATHAN: And that's in the record; right?
MR. EVERDELL: We're going to have to add that as part of the stipulation. We have the land registry records for that residence now, as well, showing her ownership of that residence, but we still want to be able to counter what I think is an incorrect inference to the jury that she wasn't there. Yes, I understand there is a deposition where she made an offhand reference and got the years wrong, but we now have a witness who can actually say what we believe to be true, which is that she wasn't living there either until she owned it.
JUDGE NATHAN: And sometimes details are off.
MR. EVERDELL: And she may have in that deposition gotten the place wrong because she had the prior place in London, and Stanhope Mews was the name of the street. At that time in '92, '93, she owned that place. So she may have gotten the place wrong in the deposition. So what I think it sets up is a misleading -- factually misleading impression for the jury based on an offhand deposition transcript quote, one line from a 2019 deposition where it's not exactly clear which residence she may be referring to in the first place. And this is an important point for the defense, your Honor. We feel like --
JUDGE NATHAN: Let me just make sure, because all of this, all of this is impeachment of a witness who says that Ms. Maxwell lived at the Kinnerton residence at a particular time.
MR. EVERDELL: That's right. She testified that the events that she testified to in the U.K., the events of sexual conduct -- contact with Jeffrey Epstein took place in the Kinnerton Street address. She even identified the photo of the house with the red door across from the Nags Head Pub, which is the 44 Kinnerton Street --
JUDGE NATHAN: It was an interesting moment during the cross that focused on the pub across the street. I remember thinking, huh, I wonder if they have a witness from the pub across the street. I actually did. You know what, you were thinking the same thing, too.
MR. EVERDELL: Well, no, your Honor. What we were thinking is we wanted to make sure, because that witness had said on different occasions to the government that the events took place in the apartment across from the Nags Head Pub, that was one time, but she also said it happened at a Kensington address, which, by the way, is not Belgravia, it's somewhere else in London. It's nearby, but it's next door, it's several subway tube stops away. So we weren't sure she was going to say it was the Kensington address or it was the Belgravia address at Kinnerton Street. She committed to the Belgravia.
JUDGE NATHAN: What date was that?
MR. EVERDELL: What date was what?
JUDGE NATHAN: That testimony that she committed to the Kinnerton.
MR. EVERDELL: She had said two different things in the 302s to the government.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm talking about at trial.
MR. EVERDELL: What day was in the trial transcript?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MR. EVERDELL: I think Kate testified on 12/6, your Honor.
MR. EVERDELL: Yes. And in order to counter that, we thought we were just going to use the property records.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right.
MR. EVERDELL: But because then the government raised the issue of the deposition testimony, which we weren't anticipating, which we think is misleading, because we think that is factually inaccurate, we thought, well, okay, now we better get somebody who can testify about her actual residency there. That's why we scrambled to find Mr. Moran, who we now have.
JUDGE NATHAN: From the pub across the street?
MR. EVERDELL: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Isn't that funny.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, just a few things in response. The first is the defense now has property records for the second address, it had not been disclosed to the government. So we're now having a Friday afternoon, at the conclusion of the defense case, mini trial about properties in London, when all of this could have been anticipated long ago. I think what defense counsel has said about mixing up addresses is, it's very telling because, it appears to be that their explanation for Ms. Maxwell's deposition testimony is that she mixed up two properties, and that shows that extremely marginal relevance, if any, of impeachment value for Kate's testimony because there doesn't appear to be any dispute that Ms. Maxwell was living in that area of London during the relevant time and defense counsel can't have it both ways. They can't say Ms. Maxwell easily confused two properties.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sure they can. Everybody does that.
MS. MOE: My point, your Honor, is the relevance. If the view is it's easy to mix up two houses, what's the relevance of going down this rabbit hole of two different properties in London and records at this late stage, especially given the late disclosure to the government and our inability to look into this or respond to it. It's such a sideshow at such a late hour. This could have been teed up much earlier.
MR. EVERDELL: I don't know how this could have been considered a sideshow. This shows that what the witness testified to was a factual impossibility.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just like Ms. Maxwell's testimony that she lived there from '92 to '93; right? In fact, your argument is it's a factual impossibility that she lived there in '92, '93?
MR. EVERDELL: I'm saying the witness is mistaken based on the property records, yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Look, I always say, I have so many bridges to across, I cross the bridge that's in front of me. So what is the question?
MR. EVERDELL: Well, so, there are, I think, a few questions. We still have to confer on the stipulation to the Kinnerton Street records. We are going to propose being able to admit the land registry records showing the transfer of title of both the Kinnerton Street residence and the Stanhope Mews residence. Those are both land registry documents. And by the way, your Honor, those are selfauthenticating because they came from the land registry and they are selfauthenticating foreign public documents. Those can be admitted just by themselves, but we want a stipulation to the fact that they reflect certain information. And I think what the Court said is if we're going to be permitted to admit those, the defense should be able to permit -- sorry. The prosecution should be able to admit that deposition testimony from when Ms. Maxwell said '92, '93. So we have to --
JUDGE NATHAN: Look, is there a basis for the government not to admit the testimony?
MR. EVERDELL: Well, I think, your Honor, it's -- one moment, your Honor. Your Honor, the government, as we discussed, provided that last week to us. So it's new information for us that we had to respond to. She was never shown these documents. And it was during the deposition. I mean, she was never shown the registry records of the property records. If you own houses and there is already evidence --
JUDGE NATHAN: I don't know.
MR. EVERDELL: I don't know either, your Honor, but I imagine if you own several places over the years, as Ms. Maxwell has, there is evidence in the record that she was living in different places over different years, many different places. You might not recall right off the top of your head the exact years that you lived at some address unless you can refresh your recollection. And it's also possible that if you're being asked a vague question in a deposition and you had two different addresses in London, you may assume they're talking about one and not the other, and you may answer the years you lived in the other address instead of the one we're actually talking about today.
JUDGE NATHAN: If we get a stip on the two addresses, the two property records coming in and the depo coming in, then I think both sides argue what they want from it; right?
MR. EVERDELL: I think that's right. All I heard was from the government is that they're now going to object to the other property records, the Stanhope Mews property records, which we were just getting today because we're trying to deal with this issue that came up. We got them from the land registry. I'm happy to show them to the government.
JUDGE NATHAN: You say they came up. The whole point of this is you want to impeach the witness's testimony as to which residence it was; right? That's the whole point of this?
MR. EVERDELL: That's correct.
JUDGE NATHAN: So let me just ask, if there is a stip as to the two different property ownership records and the depo testimony coming in, is there a need for an additional witness? Is the defense still seeking an additional witness on Monday that delays trial?
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we need to just confer on that one moment.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sure.
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, yes, because at that point, even though the sides could argue both sides, we feel like we need additional factual development to be able to counter the government's argument that she didn't reside there based on the deposition testimony.
JUDGE NATHAN: And when did you get the depo?
MR. EVERDELL: I can't remember when the government produced the depo to us.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, on Friday evening, the defense produced the Kinnerton Street records to the government. The next day, we produced the deposition in which Ms. Maxwell made that statement. Of course, it's Ms. Maxwell's own deposition and it's also a public record.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. I mean, it comes in. I don't see any basis it doesn't come in. The question is --
MS. MOE: Your Honor, with respect to the deposition, just so the record is clear, it's only being offered to rebut this last minute registry issue. There is no -- to the extent defense counsel is arguing they need to call this witness to rebut an inference from the government, I want to be clear it's only because the defense is putting this at issue. We would be happy to just rest here and not make this an issue at all. The reason that there is a purported need for this is, again, because the defense is inviting this issue at this late hour.
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if the government is willing to stip to just putting in the property records showing the title ownership without the deposition transcript, we're willing to do that, we won't need the extra witness. If they're going to put in the deposition transcript and make that an issue, we feel like we need the other witness to be able to counter that.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, you'll discuss it and when I come back, you'll tell me, both sides, what the application is. What do we have after lunch?
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we would like to use the lunch break to hammer out the final stipulations. If we can have extra time to get that done, I think that's going to be it, is the reading of the stipulations. There are some documents, but these are things we have to go through over the break.
JUDGE NATHAN: So basically no other defense witnesses are available today following stips. And then the open question, is the defense seeking to have potentially this rebuttal, rebuttal, rebuttal on points, the witness regarding timing of residence on Monday. I don't know when even if the defense's application -- I did ask for a proposed order because I don't --
MS. MENNINGER: It was sent, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: I mean, the question is, to what end.
MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Why don't we see about the conferral, we'll see how that process goes and maybe it won't be an issue, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You'll confer on that. I don't know if there is a conferral to be had on the Kelly issue, because I'm going to spend my remaining lunch hour looking at this material. Seems to me, best case scenario is if I agree with the order, it goes to the marshals and then what? She's not produced today, she's not produced Monday, then what?
MS. MENNINGER: I think, your Honor, our intent would be if she's not produced by Monday morning, then, you know, we don't have time. But given that it's 1:30 and there is a lunch break, so that's 2:30, it's two and a half hours with a break in there of continuance for purposes of trying to get the witness's appearance.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll look at the materials. Anything else?
JUDGE NATHAN: Anything else?
MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: It will be a long break for the jury, but we'll resume in 45. Okay?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, if we had time to work on these stipulations, an hour might make sense, but only if the government's available to meet.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll give you an hour. It just means the jury is sitting there for an hour and a half at this point. All right. I'll meet with you in an hour, 2:30. I'm sorry. One more thing. Ms. Sternheim, when we return from lunch, I would intend to allocute Ms. Maxwell on her right to testify or not testify.
MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. Thank you.
(Recess)
(Continued on next page) A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 3:15 P.M.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. We have a few things to take up. Ms. Comey.
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. We appreciate the Court's indulgence. We've reached a number of stipulations, and I believe we'll be able to finish the case this afternoon as a result. So we very much appreciate the Court's patience with the parties. There is one issue that I believe the defense still wanted to raise that we were not able to reach agreement on. I would propose that we have that argument now and then, depending on the result of that, I think we can proceed to wrap the case up.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. All right. How long will the reading of stips take?
MS. COMEY: Ten to 15 minutes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Oh, okay. So I didn't know if we were talking an hour, in which case my suggestion was going to be let's do that and then give the jury a break and then finish, but okay. I'll hear the issue. Ms. Menninger.
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. As your Honor is aware from prior proceedings in this trial, one of the facts about which there is dispute involves the date on which Jeffrey Epstein began living at 9 East 71st Street. Jane contended that she went to only one home over the years, she was 14, 15, and 16. Those are the years 1994 through 1996. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of several documents under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. These relate to a case in this district, in this courthouse, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case number is 96 CV 8307, Denny Chin was the presiding judge, now Second Circuit justice. It was United States of America --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a judge. Second Circuit judge. You've given him an early promotion.
MS. MENNINGER: If you could let him know. United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein and Ivan Fisher. It was an action brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. They were the party in interest -- they were the lawyers representing the United States of America in that proceeding, so the same Southern District of New York office. In that proceeding, the questions -- Mr. Epstein's prior residence at East 69th Street was leased from the U.S. Government, who had taken possession of it after -- from the government of Iran. And he began a lease in that residence in 1992. The contention in the litigation was that he had abandoned living in East 69th in or about January of 1996. Then he leased it to Mr. Fisher, who was a codefendant in the case. And then the U.S. Government sought to evict Mr. Fisher. So both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Fisher were the defendants in the action. There were, on behalf of Mr. Epstein, two answers filed in the case, answer to cross-claims.
These are docket entry numbers 15 and 45 from that action. In the first paragraph of those two answers, Mr. Epstein admitted that in or about January 1996, he vacated the premises, the premises being East 69th Street. And then subsequent to that, other events happened. In an opinion in docket entry 46, Judge Chin issued an opinion, and he made a finding of fact that Epstein and his family continued to reside at the premises, East 69th, until January of 1996, at which time Epstein abandoned. So that is an opinion and two answers that we seek to admit under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, judicial notice. Under the terms of that, your Honor, it is, I believe, a fact that can be judicially noticed. 201(f) describes what instructions are given to the jury in the event that it is criminally noticed; and in a criminal case, the jury is to be instructed that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive.
I'm not intending or offering the full documents that I just cited to your Honor, but the fact of Mr. Epstein's admission that he vacated East 69th in or about January '96, and then Judge Chin's decision making that finding of fact. There is one other document from that docket that we seek to admit, but under a separate rule of evidence, 804(b)(1). There was actually a deposition transcript from Mr. Epstein in which he is asked -- and it was taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. And he was asked in that deposition, Is it correct that you moved from the premises -- meaning East 69th -- to 9 East 71st Street in or around the beginning of '96? And Mr. Epstein responded, You asked me that question three times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly when. This deposition excerpt was appended to a pleading that was submitted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in support of their case at docket number 52. So I believe that one is admissible under 804(b)(1), the deposition transcript.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. One at a time, Mr. Rohrbach.
MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor. I will go through each of the documents, but just as a substantive point, this is very much like the 44 Kinnerton Street issues we've been talking about. And substantively --
JUDGE NATHAN: Microphone.
MR. ROHRBACH: This is very much like the 44 Kinnerton Street documents we've been talking about, in that the legal documents describing when Mr. Epstein abandoned this property does not reflect where Mr. Epstein was living. As the defense knows, one of the defense witnesses, who they ultimately decided not to call, would have testified that Epstein was living on East 71st Street prior to 1996. And so if the Court admits this -- this is the reason this has to go first in the remaining issues. If the Court admits this, the government would put on rebuttal evidence showing that, in fact, Mr. Epstein lived on 71st Street before he says he abandoned the property in 1996. So that's sort of a substantive background point. Moving through the documents, your Honor, Judge Chin's opinion is a summary judgment opinion. So I think it's quite clear actually that the facts can reasonably be disputed. The summary judgment standard, as the Court well knows, is that the Court -- is that Judge Chin had to take all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, which in this case was not the United States. So I think it very much can be controverted that the fact in -- the statement in the background section of Judge Chin's opinion is not a factual finding about when Mr. Epstein abandoned --
JUDGE NATHAN: Can I see it?
MS. MENNINGER: What's that, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Can I see the document?
MS. MENNINGER: Oh, yes, your Honor. I apologize. I have copies for the Court, and I gave a copy to the government.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. ROHRBACH: Judge Chin sets out the summary judgment standard on page 12.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Do you want to respond to the summary judgment point? So 201(b), the Court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute.
MS. MENNINGER: This was the government's motion for summary judgment; and it was Mr. Epstein's admission that that's when he vacated the premises. So I don't think that -- in terms of that's why I think that you need to take both the answers and the summary judgment together, rather than trying to introduce one or the other. It was the government's position that he abandoned in January of '96, and he admitted that.
MR. ROHRBACH: The defense is not offering any of these documents which contain the government's position, your Honor.
MS. MENNINGER: That's not true. Docket entry 52 is a submission by the government.
MR. ROHRBACH: I apologize. I'm talking about the summary judgment opinion and the answers, but not the government's claims, which is not a document -- I'll speak -- the letter, I think, is a sort of separate matter than the summary judgment opinion and the answers. Those are ones where all we have is a summary judgment opinion. We don't know what the basis was for it. And we have some answers to cross-claims in which Mr. Epstein asserts some facts to which we don't know what the question was. And I suppose this brings me to the broader point which applies to the letter and Epstein deposition as well, which is that this was not a material fact in that litigation; and so there was no reason for the government to litigate when Mr. Epstein, in fact, lived in and was occupying the particular residences. What mattered in that litigation is that at some point in early 1996, Mr. Epstein made an attempt to do an illegal sublet of the property; and so the government was suing for ejectment and back rent from Mr. Epstein. But it did not matter to the government whether Mr. Epstein abandoned the property in January 1996, December 1995, November 1995. There was no reason for that to be litigated in the course of that litigation. It just mattered that he abandoned the property before he tried to do the illegal sublet. That's why it's in the background section of Judge Chin's opinion; that's why it's not a significant portion of any of the other documents. There is absolutely no reason to take judicial notice of it. And actually for the same reason, it's not subject to the 804 hearsay exception.
MS. MENNINGER: That's not true, your Honor. In this litigation, one of the central issues that the government -- this same office -- put forth is that Mr. Epstein's abandoning that property was in violation of the lease, which kept him -- which he needed to reside in the residence under the terms of the lease. So it was a central fact. It was admitted by Mr. Epstein. It was put forth in their claims against him, and that is all covered in the summary judgment motion. It was admitted on an answer. It was the only admission on that point. And then it was testified to in a deposition. So I don't think that saying it was not an issue in the case can possibly withstand scrutiny when you look at all of these. Also, the factual background about the witness that they said that they would call to dispute this, we've interviewed this witness, and his testimony is not at all in contradiction to this. He was hired in December of '95. He said Mr. Epstein wasn't living there for the first three weeks that he was hired in December of '95, and took possession in early '96. So I don't think there is a basis to call a rebuttal witness to dispute these documents, all of which are covered both by 201, as well as 804(b)(1).
MR. ROHRBACH: That's not accurate about this witness. But as a general point, there's no question that if they offered evidence like this, the government can and will call rebuttal witnesses to testify about occupancy. As to the point about whether this is a material fact, it was material that Mr. Epstein stopped living at some point in the 69th Street home. It was not material the precise date on which he stopped living there, much less whether he had started spending his nights living on 71st Street at some point prior to that.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Do you want to indicate which documents by mark you're seeking admission?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Forgive me if you said them before, I'm not sure.
MS. MENNINGER: That's okay. Z-9 is the first answer. That was docket entry number 15.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: And it would be the first paragraph. The same is true of Z-10, first paragraph. With respect to Z-7, that's the opinion. The fact is contained on page 4 in the first full paragraph, first sentence. And then with respect to Z-8, your Honor, it's towards the back of the document. It's paginated page 45 of 53, that's where the deposition excerpt was contained.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: And it's on that page 45. It's the first question on that page.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. I'm sustaining the objection. 201(a) has not been sufficiently established, in light of the posture of the litigation and what was materially in dispute. What's next?
MS. MENNINGER: With respect to 804(b)(1), your Honor, for the deposition excerpt for Mr. Epstein.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Okay. Mr. Rohrbach.
MR. ROHRBACH: It is the same objection here, your Honor. Since this is a question about a fact that was the precise -- sorry, let me --
JUDGE NATHAN: It's not the same.
MR. ROHRBACH: It's not exactly the same. But let's look at the language of 804, which is, in order for it to be offered against a party, the party has to have had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it. The government's motive in developing this fact is completely different than it was in the civil litigation. The government's motive here is to determine where Mr. Epstein personally lived. The government's motive in this deposition was to determine whether he had moved -- whatever that means -- from one residence to another one by a certain date in order to advance their claims about ejectment and back rent.
MS. MENNINGER: In the answer itself, Mr. Epstein says, You asked me that question three times. And the question was, Is it correct that you moved from the premises to 9 East 71st in or around the beginning of 1996? That's the exact question --
JUDGE NATHAN: What was the response?
MS. MENNINGER: You asked me that question three times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly when. And the position of Jane was that he was living there in 1994. So I think under 401, it is a question of whether that's relevant. It is certainly different than the testimony --
JUDGE NATHAN: The fact that it was asked three times is the argument that it -- contrary to my immediately prior ruling, that there was a motive to develop it?
MS. MENNINGER: There was motive to develop it, your Honor. That was the whole point of this litigation. I mean, I can offer the complaint as well, but it's in the summary judgment ruling.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. For the same reason, it's sustained. What else?
MR. ROHRBACH: Nothing else on this from the government, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: In that case, your Honor, I think that we have a number of stipulations to finalize, and then I think we will be ready to bring the jury back out, and it should take about 10 or 15 minutes, at which point I think the presentation of evidence will be complete.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So I got the note, just for the record, the withdrawal of the request to issue an arrest warrant for the witness Kelly, who hasn't responded to the subpoena.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. Part of the discussions are that we would wrap up today.
JUDGE NATHAN: I know. But you sent my chambers an email. Is that application withdrawn?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: To be clear, which application is that?
MS. MENNINGER: The application to have the marshals arrest Kelly Bovino for nonappearance on her subpoena.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. We are working out a resolution of issues that would also not necessitate the witness from London on Monday?
MS. COMEY: That's exactly right, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. COMEY: And it would mean that there would be no government rebuttal case as well.
JUDGE NATHAN: And no government rebuttal.
MS. COMEY: No government rebuttal case.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. COMEY: The parties have reached consensus to end the case.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. All right. While you're working, Ms. Sternheim, are you ready for the allocution?
MS. STERNHEIM: I am.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. I'll ask Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Sternheim to stand. Ms. Maxwell, I want to make sure you understand that you have the right to testify in your own defense. You also have the right not to testify. If you decide not to testify, I will instruct the jury that they may not draw any inference against you based on that decision, and that fact may not enter into their deliberations. I want to make sure that you know that the decision whether to testify or not is your decision. You are entitled to the best advice of your attorneys in making this decision, but the decision is yours. Ms. Maxwell, do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, the government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt; and so there is no need for me to testify.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Ms. Sternheim, have you discussed the issue with your client?
MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, we have.
JUDGE NATHAN: And you've advised her that it is her decision?
MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, we have.
JUDGE NATHAN: She's just indicated that her decision is not to testify; is that correct?
MS. STERNHEIM: That is correct.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Maxwell, that is correct? THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, that is correct.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. You may be seated.
MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Five minutes?
MS. COMEY: Yes, please, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
(Recess)
JUDGE NATHAN: Counsel, are you ready?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: On the defense?
MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. One thought for Monday. I'm going to tell the jury to be here at 9, rather than 9:30. We'll take as much advantage of the day as we can.
MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, the government and I had spoken about this. And if it's amenable to the Court -- they haven't spoken yet, but we can talk about this after.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. All right. We'll bring in the jury.
MS. COMEY: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
MS. STERNHEIM: We were going to suggest also beginning at 9. And whether the Court would inquire of the jury if they would be willing to stay a little later so that we can complete everything on Monday.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. You don't mean extended time for deliberations, you mean the closings.
MS. STERNHEIM: No, I mean to do the closing arguments.
JUDGE NATHAN: You pushed it off. Yes.
MS. STERNHEIM: Closing arguments, rebuttal, charge.
JUDGE NATHAN: And what's your best estimate? We'll do a shortened lunch too, because we presumably won't have issues to work through.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, we estimate that the summation argument for Ms. Moe will be between two and three hours. My rebuttal, it's hard to estimate. I doubt it would be more than 45 minutes at most.
JUDGE NATHAN: And the defense.
MS. STERNHEIM: It would not exceed the government's main closing argument, and hopefully would be shorter.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. It will be tight. So I'll tell them that we'll start at 9, and that they should prepare for the possibility of being kept until 5:30?
MS. STERNHEIM: We had proposed 6 o'clock.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. COMEY: Obviously, your Honor, we will strive for efficiency in our arguments.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Okay. I will say that. I need to give them an opportunity to let Ms. Williams know if that's not possible. I don't know if somebody has childcare responsibilities or the like.
MS. STERNHEIM: Understood. That's why we wanted to raise it with you now.
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Thank you. Bring in the jury.
(Jury present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Members of the jury, thank you so much for your patience. I greatly appreciate it. Mr. Everdell, you may proceed.
MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, at this time the parties have a number of stipulations that we would like to read for the jury.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
MR. EVERDELL: The first is an oral stipulation between the parties, and I would like to have Ms. Comey read that one out to the jury.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. The parties have hereby stipulated and agreed that Government Exhibits 52-K, 52-J, and 52-L are redacted excerpts of what has been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 52. And the government would offer those three exhibits, 52-K, J, and L under seal to protect the privacy of third parties.
MR. EVERDELL: And without waiving our prior objections, no objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. 52-K, 52-J, and 52-L are admitted under temporary seal for me to consider limited redactions.
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. (Government's Exhibits 52-J, 52-K, 52-L received in evidence)
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we have another oral stipulation agreed to by the parties. The parties hereby stipulate and agree that Annie Farmer's boots were seized by the FBI on June 29th, 2021.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. EVERDELL: We have another oral stipulation. The parties hereby stipulate and agree that Mike Wallace's date of birth is May 9th, 1918.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you.
MR. EVERDELL: We have one more oral stipulation. The parties hereby stipulate and agree that The Lion King, the Broadway musical, opened in previews at the New Amsterdam Theater in New York City on October 15th, 1997, with the official opening on November 13th, 1997.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. EVERDELL: And your Honor, we have some written stipulations now, which I would like to read to the jury.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. EVERDELL: First, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among the United States of America, by Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Laura Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, and defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and with the consent of her attorneys, Christian Everdell, Esquire, Laura Menninger, Esquire, Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esquire, and Bobbi Sternheim, Esquire, that: The witness referred to as Kate and her counsel attended a meeting with the government prosecutors on September 3rd, 2021. At that meeting, Kate's counsel provided the government prosecutors with a partially completed visa application for a U visa, and asked to discuss Kate's visa status. It is further stipulated and agreed that this stipulation marked as Defense Exhibit A-1 may be received in evidence at trial. It's dated today's date, signed by the parties.
(Continued on next page)
MS. COMEY: No objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: A-1 is admitted.
(Defendant's Exhibit A-1 received in evidence)
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I now have A2.
JUDGE NATHAN: And you could you skip the preface and say, between the parties.
MR. EVERDELL: Sure, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you.
MR. EVERDELL: It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among the parties that, if recalled as a witness, Dominique Hyppolite would testify as follows: The Palm Beach County school maintains school records in the ordinary course of business. The document marked Defense Exhibits DH1, DH2, and DH3 are each a true and accurate copy of Palm Beach County school records for Virginia Robertson. The document marked Defendant's Exhibit J2 is a true and accurate copy of Palm Beach County school records for the witness identified as Jane. It is further stipulated and agreed that Defense Exhibits DH1, DH2, DH3, and J2, and this stipulation marked as Defense Exhibit DH4, may be received in evidence at trial. And it's dated today's date, signed by the parties.
MS. COMEY: No objection. The government would request that Exhibit J2 be accepted under seal consistent with the Court's prior order.
JUDGE NATHAN: DH1, DH2, DH3, and DH4 are admitted. J2 is admitted under seal with the opportunity to propose a narrow redaction. (Defendant's Exhibits DH1, DH2, DH3, DH4, J2 received in evidence)
MR. EVERDELL: That's correct, your Honor. And I have copies for the Court if you want me to hand those up now.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's okay. I'll take them after.
MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. We have A5 now, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. EVERDELL: It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among the parties that the HM Land Registry is the governmental authority in the United Kingdom that maintains official public records relating to the ownership of land and property located in the United Kingdom. Defense Exhibit MG12 are documents relating to the property located at 69 Stanhope Mews East, London SQ75QT, United Kingdom, that were retrieved from the HM Land Registry on March 26th, 2021. Defense Exhibit MG1 are documents related to the property located at 44 Kinnerton Street, London, SW1XHES, United Kingdom, that were retrieved from the HM Land Registry on December 13th, 2021. Pages 1 to 3 of defense Exhibit MG12 is a true and accurate copy of the HM Land Registry official public record dated January 21st, 1994, confirming the registered ownership of Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell as of November 11th, 1988 of the property located at 69 Stanhope Mews East, London, SQ75QT, United Kingdom.
Pages 4 to 6 of Defense Exhibit MG12 is a true and accurate copy of the HM Land Registry official public record, dated April 24th, 1995, confirming the registered ownership of Anthony John Jets as of April 4th, 1995, of the property located at 69 Stanhope Mews East, London, SQ75QT, United Kingdom, after ownership of said property by Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell. Pages 1 to 2 of Defense Exhibit MG1 is a true and accurate copy of the HM Land Registry official public record, dated March 20th, 1997, confirming the registered ownership of Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell as of March 20th, 1997, of the property located at 44 Kinnerton Street, London, Southwest 1XATS, United Kingdom.
Pages 3 to 4 of Defense Exhibit MG1 is a true and accurate copy of the HM Land Registry official public record dated December 15th, 1992, confirming the registered ownership of John Gerard O'Neal and Nessa O'Neal, as of June 30th, 1986, of the property located at 44 Kinnerton Street, London SW1XEHES, United Kingdom, before ownership of said property by Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell. It is further stipulated and agreed that Government Exhibit 610A is a fair and accurate copy of selected pages from a transcript of a deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on April 9th, 2019. It is further stipulated and agreed that Defense Exhibit MG12, Defense Exhibit MG1, Government Exhibit 610A, and this stipulation marked as Defense Exhibit A5 may be received in evidence at trial. It's dated with today's date and signed by the parties.
MS. COMEY: No objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Great. Defense MG12, MG1, and A5 are admitted, and GX610A is admitted. (Defendant's Exhibits MG12, MG1, A5 received in evidence)
(Government's Exhibit 610A received in evidence)
MR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor. I believe this is the final stipulation, A6, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.
MR. EVERDELL: It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among the parties that on August 17th, 2021, Robert Glassman, counsel for the witness testifying using the pseudonym Jane, spoke by phone with a prosecutor in this case. The notes of the call reflect that Glassman stated that before the government charged the case, Jane had discussed with Glassman whether to cooperate with the case, and during those conversations, Glassman had advised Jane to cooperate, and discussed with Jane that cooperating with the case was the morally right thing to do, and they had discussed how testifying at trial was the right thing to do. Glassman also mentioned that Glassman had told Jane it would, quote, help her case, unquote. It is further stipulated and agreed that this stipulation, marked as Defense Exhibit A6, may be received in evidence at trial. And it's dated with today's date, signed by the parties.
MS. COMEY: No objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: A6 is admitted.
(Defendant's Exhibit A6 received in evidence)
MR. EVERDELL: May I have a moment, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, those are all the stipulations.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead, Ms. Sternheim.
MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. At this time, the defense rests.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Comey.
MS. COMEY: The government has no further case, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Thank you. Members of the jury, that closes the evidence portion of the trial. Let me tell you what comes next. Closing arguments are summation by the parties. Both sides will have an opportunity to summarize for you their view of the evidence in the case and the arguments they wish you to consider. Following that, I'll instruct you as to the law that you'll follow during your deliberations and then you'll begin your deliberations. Monday, I'm going to ask that we start at 9:00 a.m. instead of 9:30. And I want you -- I believe we'll finish at our normal time, but there is a possibility that, just to get through what we need to do on Monday, we may go a little bit later. So I'm going to ask you to arrange to be here as late as 6:00 p.m. If that is a problem, on your way out tonight, let Ms. Williams know, and we won't do that.
I want to stick to my promise to the schedule, but if everybody is able to stay as late as 6:00 on Monday, that might help us ensure that we can get done what we want to do in one day. So again, Monday, 9:00 a.m., the parties will do their closing arguments, their summations, then I'll instruct you as to the law, and then the deliberations will begin. So 9:00 a.m. on Monday. If staying until 6:00 on Monday is a hardship, please let Ms. Williams know on your way out and we'll end at our normal time. I'm going to let you go for the weekend and the day given where we are in the trial. I want to just take a couple moments to really emphasize how important it is, of course, that you continue to follow all of my instructions. Even though we're at this different phase of the case, no communications with each other or anyone else through any means about the case. No consuming any information about the case through any means. Continue to keep an open mind until you hear the summation -- the closing arguments of the parties, my instructions as to the law, and you begin your deliberations as a jury. It's vitally important that those rules continue to be followed all the way through. I'm very grateful for your patience today and throughout. I wish you a very good and safe weekend. Please be cautious out there. I want to see everybody back here Monday at 9:00. And I hope you have a wonderful weekend. Thank you.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury not present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Matters to take up. Oh, the charge, I bet you're curious. I want to give it just one more read. I haven't had time to do that today given the issues that occupied the lunch break. I would say by 6:00 p.m., you'll have a copy of my draft charge and the draft verdict sheet and we'll meet at 9:00 a.m. here for the charging conference tomorrow.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. Just on a separate housekeeping matter, your Honor, I just wanted to flag, given the number of issues we're trying to streamline and resolve today and yesterday, we haven't had a chance yet to discuss logistics for closing, but we want to make sure we iron that out so we make sure we're ready to go on Monday morning. I wanted to flag that we'll confer this evening to make sure we're on the same page on logistics and screens and the like. Would the Court prefer that we reach out about a proposal about how that should be arranged? I want to make sure we're not causing any delay on Monday morning.
JUDGE NATHAN: I mean, I think confer with the court staff to make sure you have what you need. Only if there is a dispute do you need to raise it with me.
MS. MOE: Is there anyone in particular within the courthouse staff we should reach out to about logistics?
JUDGE NATHAN: Start with Ms. Williams. I guess it depends what it is. We'll have some staff here tomorrow for the charging conference, but Ms. Williams will be reachable no matter what over the weekend and she can direct traffic.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you.
MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, at this time, we would reiterate and renew our motion pursuant to Rule 29.
JUDGE NATHAN: With that reservation, we can proceed to the charging conference. Anything else to take up?
MR. EVERDELL: Not from the defense, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: I thank everyone. I'll see everyone at 9:00. You'll get the charge as soon as I can, but by 6:00.
(Adjourned to December 18, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.) * * *