Jury Notes, Deliberation Schedule, and Transcript Redaction Ruling
54 linesUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 20 CR 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Jury Trial ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. December 29, 2021 9:35 a.m. Before: HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge APPEARANCES DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: ALISON MOE LARA POMERANTZ ANDREW ROHRBACH Assistant United States Attorneys HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA LAURA A. MENNINGER -and- BOBBI C. STERNHEIM -and- COHEN & GRESSER BY: CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL
(In open court; 9:35 a.m.)
JUDGE NATHAN: Please be seated. I have a note: "May we please have the following transcripts:" Five names are listed. I'm going to be cautious because I think it includes at least one last name of someone who testified using only a first name. The first one is Shawn. The second one is Cimberly Espinosa. The third, I can't read the last name. I'm going to have counsel take a look. The fourth is Amanda Young. And the fifth is Jason Richards. So you'll start working on those. "Also, may we have clarification regarding our schedule going forward. Are we required to continue deliberations every day, including 12/31, and 1/1, until we reach a verdict? We ask in order to plan our schedules accordingly." And I have a juror who did raise one like couple-hour conflict, which I'll speak to counsel about at sidebar, because it's private juror information, and we can do that now while, Ms. Moe, you're gathering the materials.
JUDGE NATHAN: And I'll show you the note to identify the --
(Sidebar conference SEALED)
(In open court)
JUDGE NATHAN: Aside from the private information we discussed, I showed this note, Court Exhibit 18, to counsel, and they too can't read the third name listed well enough to be able to respond to it, so I am going to put a note to the jury asking for clarification on that. And we're gathering the other materials. And I will craft a response to the schedule issue that I'll come back and run by counsel. So I'll step down to do that. Thank you. THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
(Recess; 9:44 a.m.)
(In open court; 9:54 a.m.)
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. So we brought some of the transcripts back. I sent my note back asking for clarification on the third name. And then I want you to let me know specifically how you'd like me to respond to the scheduling question. So just to read it again: "May we have clarification regarding our schedule going forward. Are we required to continue deliberations every day, including 12/31 and 1/1/2022, until we reach a verdict? We ask in order to plan our schedules accordingly." So my inclination is to say: "You asked about the schedule going forward. Yes, you will continue deliberations as needed every day going forward, including," and I think -- I mean, they mentioned 12/31 and 1/1. I think I should mention 1/2 as well, since that's the Sunday, "until you reach a verdict." Go ahead, Ms. Sternheim.
MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. I would just say, with regard to those holiday dates, that it should be their option. This jury knows that they were committed through January 15th. If for some reason they have plans that are going to distract them by virtue of having to cancel them, I think the option is they can if they wish, but it can be continued on Monday if that is their preference.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, I will say, again, if anyone has any unmoveable commitments or -- what have I said? If that is a hardship or anyone has any unmoveable commitments, they can let Ms. Williams know, but for the reasons I have indicated on the record, I am going to set this schedule, regarding my concern that, given the high likelihood that a necessary member of the trial participants or one or more members of the jury would need to quarantine for ten days should they test positive, that that is a substantial delay and only increasing the risk over time, and so I am, for the reasons I've indicated, greatly concerned, and therefore it's my view that we need to proceed every day on our schedule unless -- and they are not shy to indicate -- unless they indicate it's a hardship, okay?
MS. STERNHEIM: You know what our preference is, but of course we'll abide by your decision.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Ms. Moe?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government completely agrees that deliberations should continue absent a hardship for jurors.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So I will say "as needed every day going forward, including 12/31, 1/1, and 1/2, until you reach a verdict. As I've indicated previously, if this schedule --" let me just use the exact language I've used previously. "-- if this presents a substantial hardship for anyone because of unmoveable commitments, please let Ms. Williams know." Okay, Ms. Moe?
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Sternheim?
MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: Anything else you'd like me to add?
MS. STERNHEIM: One moment, please.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sure.
MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, we would just request that you add that language which you've previously added about not pressuring them.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. I can add exactly what I've said before. "Of course, by this I don't mean to pressure you in any way. You should take all the time that you need."
MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. So again, just to sum it up: "You asked about the schedule going forward. Yes, you will continue deliberations as needed every day going forward, including 12/31, 1/1, and 1/2, until you reach a verdict. If this presents a substantial hardship for anyone because of unmoveable commitments, please let Ms. Williams know. Of course, by this I don't mean to pressure you in any way. You should take all the time that you need." I will write that up in my best possible handwriting and then we'll put that in. In the meantime, we have a note. Ah. Okay. "We are requesting the transcripts of the expert witness on memory." So it is Elizabeth Loftus. And that will be Court Exhibit 19. Okay. So you'll keep the transcripts coming. I will write up that note and send it back. Anything else, counsel?
JUDGE NATHAN: Oh, you have --
MS. MOE: Just one issue with respect to the transcript regarding Cimberly Espinosa. I'm going to defer to my colleague on this particular issue.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Go ahead.
MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. We have two prepared versions. Really, the dispute is over one set of redactions. I'm happy to pass that up to the Court with both the government's proposed redactions and the defense's proposed redactions and indicate where the dispute lies.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. I'll hear from you. I don't have the unredacted version right in front of me, so I see the difference in the redactions, but --
MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. I think the dispute is on page 2370, lines 14 to 18, and the government's view is the objection was to the whole question, that there had not been a predicate foundation to confirm a basis of knowledge, and so I think our view is the whole response should be redacted because the objection was sustained, and so I don't see how a partial answer --
JUDGE NATHAN: I need the unredacted version. My law clerk is getting it for me.
MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.
(Pause)
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. So the issue here is that it's an answer that's being objected to and not a question. The answer has three parts to it. So the first part is, "They just kind of went their separate ways." The question "How so?" is not objected to, so that stays, at the least. The answer, "They just kind of went their separate ways. Seems like Ghislaine moved on. I know that she started dating --" and then the objection. That's where the objection is. And that's what I sustained. So I agree with the defense's version that these redactions are proper. So just clarify -- sorry. I closed it. But you'll confirm the right one is going back. If the question had been objected to, then the whole answer would be struck. In the absence of the question being objected to, it's at the point of the objection that that response gets struck. Anything else?
MR. EVERDELL: Not from the defense, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Anything from the government?
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Thank you. THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
(Recess; 10:08 a.m.)
(In open court; 2:15 p.m.)
JUDGE NATHAN: I received a note. "May we please have the Larry Visoski transcript." Court Exhibit 20.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. Anything else, counsel?
MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Thank you. THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
(Recess; 2:15 p.m.)
(In open court; 4:58 p.m.)