Ghislaine Maxwell trial transcript, Dec. 16, 2021, rulings on attorney witnesses

THE COURT: All right. We have a number of issues to take up. I’ve gotten letter briefing on several issues over the past few days, including some new issues that came in last night. I did address the issue of defense witness anonymity by order last night, which will be docketed this morning when docketing puts it up, denying the defense request for anonymity for the reasons indicated.¶

As to the remaining issues, so there’s the prior inconsistent statements issue. I received the letter with the government objections close to 11 p.m. last night. I haven’t had the ability to yet go through all of them, and I haven’t heard any responses from the defense.¶

What’s the timing of anticipated witnesses here?¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, for the witness order?¶

THE COURT: Well, when might we get to a witness who implicates the prior inconsistent statements? And I gather there’s been some effort to work through stipulation and narrowing.¶

There have been some efforts, and I think there’s going to be continued efforts there. I don’t think we have a witness until after lunch that is going to implicate the prior inconsistent statements.¶

THE COURT: Okay. That may be what we’re doing during¶

4 THE COURT: I think this is an area ripe for narrowing and stipulation when feasible.¶

5 6 Okay. Next is the attorney witness issue. I am prepared to give guidance on that.¶

7 8 9 10 11 Okay. So I have the defense’s letter to call attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad and Robert Glassman to testify during the defense case-in-chief. And I’ve looked quite carefully at these arguments and proffers. Obviously I’ve had the one related to Mr. Glassman the longest.¶

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The defense argues that the testimony of the attorneys is relevant to show how and why the alleged victims cooperated with the prosecution in this case, which it argues is relevant to motive to testify and bias. I think the government concedes that, with the exception of Mr. Glassman’s requested testimony as to whether he told Jane that cooperating would “help her case,” other than that, I think the government agrees that the proffered testimony is not — at least as framed - attorney-client privilege.¶

21 22 23 24 25 I still have to exercise caution in considering the ability of defense to call these witnesses, since they are attorneys for witnesses who testified, and the boundary to privileged communications can be easily crossed. I do think as a general matter, to the extent the defense has established¶

lunch then.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

that any of these witnesses will testify to relevant nonprivileged information that is not outweighed by prejudice, it’s possible to get such testimony.¶

After careful consideration, with one exception, the information the defense seeks to elicit from the three attorneys, I conclude, is either not relevant under Rule 401, is duplicative of information elicited on cross-examination and, therefore, outweighed by prejudice, or is only potentially marginally relevant to the limited inference of impeachment so as to be outweighed by 403 prejudice.¶

The one question I intend to permit is the one I suggested the parties stipulate to testimony from Mr. Glassman. I will permit Mr. Glassman to be asked the following: Did you tell the government that you told Jane that cooperating with the government and testifying in this case would help her civil case against Epstein’s estate and Ms. Maxwell and/or her claim to the victims’ compensation fund?¶

The question does not elicit privileged information directly because it seeks only to know what Mr. Glassman told the government. Unlike the other proffers, this testimony is relevant because Mr. Glassman’s testimony, if the answer is yes, could contradict Jane’s testimony and allow an inference to the jury that at least at one point she may have been under the impression that testifying would help her civil case against Ms. Maxwell and her claim to the fund. With this¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

inference, the jury could find that Mr. Glassman’s testimony tends to impeach Jane either as to motive to testify or impeachment by contradiction or both. So that is my guidance on the issue of the attorney the witness attorney testimony.¶

Any questions?¶

MR. : None from the government, your Honor.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: I just want to be clear, your Honor.¶

You’re precluding testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr.¶

THE COURT: Yes.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: The only reason I’m asking that question is we can release them and not have them appear.¶

THE COURT: Yes, on the 401/403 grounds.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood.¶

And that may speed things up a little bit here, since we’re releasing a couple of witnesses.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.¶

All right. Making progress.¶

There’s a government objection to preclude, pursuant to Rule 16, an exhibit that I gather purports to be a sale agreement for the defendant’s home in — house in London at 44 Kinnerton Street dated 1996. Does that have a trial mark for identification, that exhibit?¶

MR. EVERDELL: It does now, I believe, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Just in time.¶

4 5 6 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. This is going to be MG — one of the MG exhibits, the agreement for sale. We’re just checking which one it is, your Honor. It’s marked as MG-2 now, your Honor. We’re going to have to hand up, I think, to the Court some of these things. I’m sorry, we have them in Trial Director now, so we’ll be able to —¶

7 THE COURT: You have them what?¶

8 9 MR. EVERDELL: We have these marked exhibits in Trial Director; we’ll be able to put them on the screen.¶

10 11 THE COURT: I don’t have a — do you have a paper copy?¶

12 MR. EVERDELL: Of that particular exhibit?¶

13 THE COURT: Yes.¶

14 MR. EVERDELL: We can bring it for the Court.¶

15 16 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy in front of you, Mr. Everdell?¶

17 18 MR. EVERDELL: I don’t, because that’s a witness that’s coming later. But let me see if I can find one.¶

19 20 THE COURT: Okay. Well, maybe we can see what else we can get to.¶

21 MR. : Your Honor, I have a paper copy.¶

22 THE COURT: Okay.¶

23 MR. EVERDELL: Put it on the screen.¶

24 THE COURT: That’s fine.¶

25 MR. EVERDELL: Put MG-2 on the screen, please, for the 4 THE COURT: Okay. There it is. Okay.¶

5 Is this you, Mr. Everdell?¶

6 MR. EVERDELL: No, this is going to be Ms. Sternheim.¶

7 THE COURT: Okay.¶

8 9 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I do have a copy if you’d like to see it.¶

10 THE COURT: Okay. Great. Thank you.¶

11 All right. And we’re marking this MG-2.¶

12 I’m sorry, I meant the cover letter.¶

13 MR. EVERDELL: The cover letter that’s dated 2010?¶

14 THE COURT: Yes.¶

15 16 17 MR. EVERDELL: Okay. We removed that from the marked exhibit; it’s just the agreement of sale that’s underneath that.¶

18 THE COURT: II, you’re just seeking to move the —¶

19 20 21 22 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, there are a number of documents that we’re going to try to introduce through — it’s actually slightly more complicated now. So Mr. Grumbridge, who is going to be —¶

23 THE COURT: What has been simple?¶

24 MR. EVERDELL: Nothing’s been simple.¶

25 Mr. Grumbridge is unable to come because of¶

Court, for the judge, and the deputy.¶

THE COURT: I’m sorry, give me again the trial mark.¶

MR. EVERDELL: MG-2, your Honor.¶

4 5 6 7 We have a notary named Keith Rooney who we plan to call today who has gone to the land registry and has obtained certified copies of the land registry entries for this property showing when the title transferred to Ms. Maxwell. And I have copies of those documents, if you’d like to see those.¶

8 THE COURT: Not yet, but maybe.¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 MR. EVERDELL: Okay. He’s also gone to the consulate, I believe, and got it apostilled to make it a foreign public document, certified as a foreign public record that could be admitted, self-authenticating by itself. But we’d like to call him to explain the process that he went through to get these documents and admit them that way.¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 He is also going to — we were going to seek to admit Mr. Grumbridge’s records through them as well, because he’s gone to Mr. Grumbridge’s office in London, checked his files, seen the copies of the agreement for sale and the other documents we were going to admit through Mr. Grumbridge in his files, has certified that they exist in his files, and can authenticate those documents and introduce those as well.¶

22 23 THE COURT: All of this is in an effort to prove that Ms. Maxwell did not live at this address before 1996?¶

24 MR. EVERDELL: That’s correct.¶

25 THE COURT: So let’s go back to the letter, if we¶

professional reasons. He would be available Tuesday. But we’re going to try to do this a different way.¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think that’s a separate record. Because I think that record reflects that there was an opportunity to purchase the leasehold outright in 2010. It’s a little bit of a complicated title. It’s actually a leasehold. She does own the lease; it’s effectively owning it, b.ut this land, I think, has been in the possession of the of Westminster since, you know, 1500. It’s a very complicated chain of title in the UK.¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 But the way it works is you pass the leasehold from one person to another. And that is effectively ownership under the land registry records. And that leasehold passed in — the contracts were exchanged in ‘96, and the deal closed in ‘97, in January ‘97; and it was registered in a land registry as a transfer of that title in March of ‘97.¶

16 17 18 19 THE COURT: And again, my question is not that it’s to prove when Ms. Maxwell purchased the home, but the defense’s proffer from counsel is that it is to prove that she did not live there before 1996?¶

20 21 22 MR. EVERDELL: That’s right. We have a witness, who says — she didn’t live there before 1997, because that’s when she actually took possession of the property, right. r¶

23 24 25 We have a witness, , who has testified to events that allegedly took place in the Kinnerton Street property in ‘94 and ‘95. And these records show that she didn’t own that¶

could, the cover letter. Do we know why it’s dated 2010?¶

place; that she wasn’t living in that place —¶

THE COURT: Well, they show she didn’t own it, I suppose.¶

4 MR. EVERDELL: Correct.¶

5 6 THE COURT: It sounds like there are different stages in the purchase process.¶

7 MR. EVERDELL: Well, yes.¶

8 9 10 11 12 13 But the records also reflect in the land registry that the ownership existed with this couple whose last time is O’Neill. They owned it under the land registry records as of 1992. That title passes then to Ms. Maxwell in 1997. These are both land registry entries which I have here, if the Court would like to see them.¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 And what Mr. Grumbridge’s records — the agreement for sale, for example, just shows the process of that contracting, right. So in December of ‘96, the parties exchange contracts; Mr. and Mrs. O’Neill and Ms. Maxwell entered into contract for sale for this property. And that deal closed as of January 1997. That’s reflected in the agreement for sale. And then the notice is given to the land registry to make it an official land record by March of ‘97. So there’s a record on file in the land registry recording that the title has passed from the O’Neills to Ms. Maxwell as of March of ‘97.¶

24 25 So there’s a couple of documents that we think are relevant that we think Mr. Rooney could enter into evidence.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

The first is the actual land registry records, which are here, which show and I can pass them up if the Court would like, which show the first ownership, which belongs to the O’Neills as of ‘92; and then title passing to Ms. Maxwell as of ‘97. That’s here. There’s also a land registry record which shows the actual transfer of title which describes all of this as well.¶

And then there are the records that are found in Mr. Grumbridge’s files, because he was the attorney who represented Ms. Maxwell in this transaction, which include that agreement for sale, because that’s a private document, but it exists in his files, it’s still there. And Mr. Rooney has seen it in his files in London. And he’s prepared to testify to that because he’s here today. And a few other documents that were in his files that relate to this sale of the property and the transfer of title at that time.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Mr.¶

MR. : I think that the point Mr. Everdell just made about how this is confusing and complicated reinforces two of the government’s arguments.¶

First of all, putting this confusing set of land transfers and leaseholds that speaks to when the defendant took ownership of the property would confuse the jury into having to understand British real estate law and actually says nothing about when she, in fact, occupied the property for the reasons¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

the government explained in its letter, including the deposition —¶

THE COURT: So the government indicates that Ms. Maxwell’s 2019 deposition indicates that she lived in the home beginning in ‘92 or ‘93?¶

MR. : Yes, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Would the government seek to introduce that testimony if I let in the legal documents?¶

MR. : Yes, we would, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Okay. So we’re going to have a trial on — we’re going to have a little mini trial on whether — on whether Ms. Maxwell lived — not owned, but lived in that house prior to 1997?¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, this is, I think, hardly a mini trial. This is extremely probative¶

THE COURT: What about the testimony, deposition testimony, in which she said she lived there beginning in ‘92 or ‘93; it comes in, doesn’t it?¶

MR. EVERDELL: We can argue that, I suppose, your Honor. But even if it does come in, they can argue that that shows that she’s —¶

THE COURT: Well, that goes directly to when she lived there. Your evidence goes to when she owned it. Right?¶

MR. EVERDELL: That’s right. But —¶

THE COURT: So when she — I see the relevance for¶

4 5 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the records show that the O’Neills owned that property until 1997, some family of the O’Neills, not Ms. Maxwell.¶

6 THE COURT: They don’t rent places in London?¶

7 8 9 10 11 MR. EVERDELL: That’s something that the government, I’m sure, could argue to the jury. But this is extremely relevant. We’re equally able to argue to the jury that this shows that she owned it, and what is testifying to couldn’t have happened because —¶

12 13 14 15 16 THE COURT: Well, again, it shows ownership. I get that. The relevant question is residence. The government has testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she lived there beginning in 1992. What evidence do you have as to whether or not she lived there prior to ownership?¶

17 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if I may have a moment.¶

18 THE COURT: You may.¶

19 (Counsel conferred with defendant)¶

20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think the solution to this problem — and this would not be a mini trial — is for us to be able to admit the records showing the ownership records. And if the government wants to admit the testimony to be able to argue the opposite point, then okay. But that’s hardly a mini trial. And then each side gets to argue their point.¶

impeachment as to when she lived there. What is the relevance to when she owned it?¶

4 5 6 7 8 THE COURT: I was sort of leaning that way when I thought the attorney was going to come testify who could be crossed on this precise question. But you want it to just come in — you want a fact not in issue, which is the ownership question, you want an inference from ownership — ownership is confusing; but the inference from the timing of ownership as to when she lived there, which is contradicted by deposition testimony that would come in from Ms. Maxwell.¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we have records which we’d have to find and anticipate this being the issue. But Ms. Maxwell had another place in London at a street called Stanhope Mews, I think it was 69 Stanhope Mews. And we may be able to find the title records that she sold it, because she had that prior to the Kinnerton Street residence. And I think if you have — we’d have to look for those. I think we probably can find them. But they would show that she had another place until she bought this new place.¶

18 19 20 21 So I think that is a fair inference to say that if somebody owned another place and didn’t buy another place until later, that they are not living at that new place if they owned the other place. That’s just common sense.¶

22 23 THE COURT: And why can’t the attorney who you had proffered as the witness for this testify?¶

24 25 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if we need the attorney, we can try to get him here, but we just couldn’t get him here¶

4 THE COURT: Okay. (Counsel conferred)¶

5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I’m told he has a court appearance on Monday, and he’s only going to be able to get on a plane Monday night and would only be available to testify Tuesday. We can consider a stipulation to his testimony too, but I think these are all relevant and we should be able to admit these to the jury to argue the inference.¶

11 12 13 THE COURT: I think the point of cross is whether he has knowledge of whether — of who lived at the residence prior.¶

14 15 16 Mr. the complication of ownership aside, what is the government’s view as to the relevance of facts regarding who lived in the home prior to 1997?¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. : So who lived in the home might have marginal impeachment value, but the government’s view is that it’s only marginal. The proffer we have from the defense now is that, at most, the defendant lived in a home nearby before she moved to the 44 Kinnerton Street home. So to the extent that that’s true — and again, it’s contradicted by the defendant’s under-oath deposition testimony — it would have only marginal impeachment value. It would mean that, if true, it would mean that identified a nearby, but incorrect,¶

Thursday or Friday. So if you give me a moment on that, I can check on the status of that.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

address for the first time she went to the defendant’s house, at most. That’s minimal impeachment value.¶

THE COURT: I think what makes sense here to talk about is a stipulation as to the timing of ownership of the Kinnerton — 44 Kinnerton, the timing of ownership. And then that can come in with the government’s deposition — with the deposition of Ms. Maxwell saying she lived there beginning in ‘92 or ‘93. Then both sides can argue to the jury what they want.¶

MR. : Yes, your Honor.¶

The government would — I’d like to confer with the team, but I think the government would probably agree to a stipulation that included both the ownership fact and the deposition testimony, so they’ll both come in.¶

MR. EVERDELL: We’ll have to confer on this, Judge, but I understand what the Court’s position is.¶

THE COURT: Okay. It sounds like that gives you what you want, which was the fact of ownership timing from which you can argue to the jury that because she didn’t own it until a certain date, she couldn’t have lived there before that date. And you can then argue, therefore, wasn’t accurate or testified falsely or however you want to phrase it, that she was in that — she believed Ms. Maxwell lived there prior to ‘97.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Just to preview for the Court, I think¶

4 5 6 7 8 we would also like to include, which is information that Mr. Grumbridge would have about the Stanhope Mews ownership prior to this, because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved in that transaction as well, from my understanding. So I think it’s — to make the same point. But if we’re going to lose his testimony, because I think it’s relevant testimony, I would like to get in all parts of his testimony that I think are relevant to this issue of ownership.¶

9 10 11 12 MR. : We’re happy to confer with defense counsel and try to work something out. I would just note that defense counsel has not produced any records to the government showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews.¶

13 THE COURT: All right.¶

14 15 MR. : We’ll confer with the defense and try to work out a stipulation.¶

16 THE COURT: Great. Thank you.¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Okay. All right. Moving on to the Dr. Loftus testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus’s anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her testimony on the use of leading questions by government investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a patient’s experience.¶

25 In an order dated November 21st, 2021, I ruled that¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Dr. Loftus’s opinions on suggestive activities are generally admissible. The government argues that the above two opinions, however, lack a foundation in the record. I’m going to deny the government’s motion to preclude here, but with guidance.¶

First, as we’ve discussed and I’ve made clear, Dr. Loftus is testifying, I understand, as a blind expert, meaning that she’ll provide relevant expert opinion, but not apply it to the facts of the case. And just as Dr. Rocchio offered testimony that included examples of grooming, variety of grooming examples or factors that might make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse, it seems comparable to me that Dr. Loftus can offer examples of suggestive activity, including the two examples the government seeks to exclude. So long as her testimony does not state that those activities occurred in this case or go into any specifics of the case, that would be beyond the bounds of a blind expert.¶

Second, I think there is — the defense has provided an adequate foundation for expert opinion on suggestive questioning by the government by cross-examining witnesses about the questions they were asked. For example, the defense on cross-examination of Jane asked about the government asking her the same question three times in the same interview, trial transcript at 515. And Jane testified that the government, quote, communicated to her through her attorney that The Lion didn’t come out until 1997, which the defense also¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

believes to be an example of suggestion. This testimony provides a sufficient basis for the jury to consider the relevance of Dr. Loftus’s opinions on suggestive questioning techniques. So that’s my basis for that ruling.¶

There was argument regarding Agent Young testimony that I don’t know the government’s general views on Agent Young’s testimony and I don’t need to reach a conclusion on that for purposes of this ruling. So I don’t have further guidance on that now.¶

All right. Questions on that?¶

MR. : Nothing from the government, your Honor.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Nothing at this time.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.¶

All right. Motion to preclude Alexander¶

■. STERNHEIM: We’d like to get Broadway tickets for everyone. That’s the best we can do.¶

THE COURT: It really is — yes. It was in Federal ‘78 that said, We just have judgment, not will nor force, just judgment. So I guess this calls for judgment.¶

So I have the defense response with respect to this witness that came in at 12:31 a.m. this morning. I haven’t had a chance to work through the issue yet.¶

What’s the timing on this witness?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MS. STERNHEIM: The timing on this witness is that the witness has COVID. So the witness will not be here unless the Court permits his testimony to be versus via WebEx. And I have cited another case in this district where I, in fact, was sent to London when a government witness was too ill to come to the district. And certainly given what the courts have been utilizing through COVID, there certainly is a legitimate basis for that request.¶

He cannot travel. He is quarantined. Provided he is not incapacitated — and I understand he would be able to give testimony from his home — that would be the request, if the government was not willing to work out a stipulation based upon the declaration that had been disclosed orally and had been provided in written form.¶

MR. : Your Honor, assuming the Court lets in the testimony at all, the government is not going to agree to a stipulation. We think this witness needs to be subject to cross-examination. It may be possible — I know the Court has done before a procedure by which a witness can testify by WebEx, but the Court would have to make certain findings first. As part of that, we think that the witness would have to produce the positive COVID test to demonstrate to the Court —¶

THE COURT: I thought the letter said that you’ve got that.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: I do, but I didn’t think it was¶

4 5 6 7 Why don’t you work out — Mr. , you think a finding other than Ms. Sternheim’s — you think a record beyond Ms. Sternheim’s proffer that she has a positive COVID test, would the government — you said the court has done this before; you mean a colleague has done it. I haven’t done it.¶

8 9 10 11 MR. : My understanding is that before the COVID era, the Court may have done — taken — permitted a witness to testify remotely or at least considered the issue before. Maybe not permitted actually, your Honor.¶

12 13 14 15 16 My understanding is in general that the courts follow the factors in Rule 15 for depositions in order to make this determination; and so the Court would have to find that witness is unavailable, that it’s in the interest of justice before permitting it.¶

17 18 THE COURT: Okay. And the government wants well, it seems to me if there’s a positive COVID test —¶

19 20 MR. : We would not resist that the witness is unavailable if there’s a positive COVID test, your Honor.¶

21 THE COURT: Okay.¶

22 23 24 25 MR. : To be clear, I don’t think the government is resisting on any of those factors. Under Rule 15 we would — and we could come back at a break and elaborate on exactly what the stretches are. We just would ask the Court to¶

necessary to make it part of a public record.¶

THE COURT: All right.¶

4 You don’t disagree with that, do you?¶

5 6 7 8 9 MS. STERNHEIM: No. But I would just note that in the case that I’ve cited, United States v. AI-Fawwaz, there was less of a showing in that case as to the unavailability of the witness who was available to come to the site where he was deposed by myself and government counsel.¶

10 11 12 13 Here, we do have a definitive positive test for COVID, and I think that speaks for itself. He certainly would not even be able to get on a plane, let alone enter the United States.¶

14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: I think the unavailability on the defense’s proffer is established. So why don’t you work out the — if a further record is required and logistics. I don’t think I let a witness testify remotely. I let a juror deliberate remotely.¶

19 20 21 22 MR. : I think the Court is right. I think the Court considered and applied the Rule 15 factors, but did not allow the witness to testify remotely is my recollection, your Honor.¶

23 24 25 THE COURT: I’ll look at it. But I anticipate this witness will be permitted to testify by WebEx. So you’ll work out what we need to do to effectuate that.¶

make the full record of the reasons for permitting the witness to testify through WebEx.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.¶

THE COURT: Okay. What other open issues do we have that we can deal with now, counsel?¶

4 5 6 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think there are some issues with this first witness that I just want to raise with the Court first.¶

7 THE COURT: That I have briefing on?¶

8 9 10 MR. EVERDELL: These are things that we’ve tried to talk with the government about. I don’t think it’s going to be a major dispute.¶

11 12 THE COURT: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I hadn’t missed it.¶

13 MR. EVERDELL: You did not miss anything.¶

14 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.¶

15 MR. EVERDELL: The first witness is¶

16 THE COURT: Right.¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. EVERDELL: So the first issue, which I think the government and the defense agree on, is that there’s a line of cross that we ask the government if they plan to get into, and they have agreed that they won’t. And that’s related to the following, which is that was a defendant in a civil lawsuit by this case, government they won’t cross one of the Epstein — not one of the accusers in but a different person. And so I’ve asked the that they not get into that; they’ve agreed that about that.¶

MR. EVERDELL: I don’t think there’s any dispute about that.¶

4 THE COURT: Agreement on that?¶

5 MS. : Yes, your Honor.¶

6 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms.¶

7 8 9 10 MR. EVERDELL: And the second issue is we were just given by some photographs that we would like to admit into evidence. She brought them with her today, so we just obtained them. I’ve shown them to the government.¶

11 I can describe them for the Court.¶

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 It’s a series of photographs from the soap opera of Jane’s — that Jane was on, because was a fan of the soap opera. And after Jane went and became a soap opera star, Jane sent her these photographs. And one is of her and there’s some of other cast members as well. And she has the envelope as well. And we would like to admit those photographs and the envelope as exhibits in her testimony.¶

20 21 22 I’ve shown them to the government. They were deciding whether or not they had an objection to this, but I was going to flag that for the Court.¶

23 24 25 MS. : Your Honor, the government remains of the view it doesn’t understand the relevance of these particular proffered exhibits; and would also note that this¶

isn’t impeaching her — wouldn’t be impeaching her testimony in any way. We just don’t understand the relevance of these exhibits.¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, it’s evidence that she maintained a relationship with the people in her abuser’s - alleged abuser’s office. I mean, if she claims that she left New York and she fled this life with Epstein and didn’t want anything more to do with it, this is evidence that she was keeping contact with people in his orbit. worked in his office and was there with him in the office every day.¶

11 12 13 14 15 16 So it goes to show that there was a continuing relationship. She voluntarily sent these photographs to her showing that she which I think is wanted to do was maintained that relationship voluntarily, the opposite of what you would do if what you put all this behind you and not be a part of this world anymore.¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 MS. : Your Honor, my recollection of Jane’s testimony was that she herself acknowledged that she had maintained a relationship with some of the individuals and their orbit on direct examination and in the course of her testimony. So, again, I don’t understand the relevance of these photographs.¶

23 24 25 THE COURT: So just to be clear, you’re saying that evidence came in already that she maintained a relationship; correct?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MS. : Your Honor, yes. There’s no dispute about that. This wouldn’t impeach her.¶

THE COURT: I understand it wouldn’t impeach, but first we start with the relevance question. That’s already in.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we don’t simply have to take the witness’s testimony. We are allowed to show that same point through other evidence. And these photographs show that the relationship continued. And we are entitled to argue not just from the witness’s testimony, but from these photographs, that there was a continuing relationship and what that means in the defense’s estimation, how we view — how we can argue to the jury what that means in terms of her state of mind.¶

THE COURT: All right. That the point is already in establishes relevance. I don’t think it’s 403 prejudice to have duplicative evidence of the nature of the relationship. I don’t hear an argument for prejudice otherwise. So obviously mindful of the need to continue to protect the anonymity of the witness, I would allow it.¶

And I’ve met with the witness and I’ve impressed upon her that she should only use the name Jane. And if she’s referring to Jane’s family members, say the mother or the brothers, she will say it that way, Jane’s mother, Jane’s¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

brothers. And she will only refer to the soap opera, not the particular name of the soap opera.¶

THE COURT: All right. What else?¶

MR. EVERDELL: I don’t think anything from the defense at the moment, your Honor.¶

MR. : Nothing from the government, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: We have one more juror we’re waiting on.¶

II, while we have a moment, so I did work out logistics for the charging conference. We can do Saturday at 9 a.m. in this courtroom. And as I said, the DE and other courthouse staff will ensure significant public access. We’ll have room in the courtroom and in overflow courtrooms for the charging conference. Anything else? MR. EVERDELL: Sorry, I did forget one thing. With respect to those photos, your Honor, if they do get admitted, there’s only one copy of each. So my plan on publishing them to the jury would be to just walk down the jury row with the photos so they can see them, because we don’t have physical — we just got them this morning; we don’t have copies of the photos. THE COURT: You can’t run off some copies? MR. EVERDELL: We can try in the meantime. THE COURT: Okay.¶

4 THE COURT: I just think we have a standard for how we’re doing this; and the need to make some photocopies isn’t a sufficient burden to —¶

5 6 MR. EVERDELL: Well, we don’t really have the resources —¶

7 8 MS. : Your Honor, the government is happy to make the copies.¶

9 THE COURT: We’ll do the copying.¶

10 MR. EVERDELL: All right. That’s fine.¶

11 I wish we did have a copier in our room, but we don’t.¶

12 we have a two-minute break?¶

13 THE COURT: Yes.¶

14 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.¶

15 THE COURT: We’ll adjourn until we have our jury.¶

16 Thank you.¶

17 (Recess)¶

18 THE COURT: All right. We have our jury.¶

19 Anything to take up before I bring them in?¶

20 MS. STERNHEIM: Just very quickly, Judge.¶

21 THE COURT: Sure. Please be seated.¶

22 23 24 25 MS. STERNHEIM: This has to do with a witness that may be coming in. It may be Dr. Loftus. We would like to be able to use the screen which you can draw on. And the technical people have assisted us in doing it. The only thing is this¶

MR. EVERDELL: But —¶

4 5 equipment does not save anything. So I would ask permission that we would be able to take a picture of it for the record. It’s a demonstrative; it’s not being put into evidence. But if the Court wished it to be part of the record, the only way to preserve it would be by a copy of it.¶

6 7 THE COURT: What’s an example? Usually you just use words to describe for the record what’s being indicated.¶

8 9 10 11 12 13 MS. STERNHEIM: There’s an opportunity for her to do a demonstrative for the jury. If we weren’t in COVID, she would get up, she would stand before the jury with a whiteboard. We cannot do that under these circumstances. And the equipment is for that very purpose. It’s been done in other cases; it’s just that this equipment —¶

14 THE COURT: So it would be like a whiteboard.¶

15 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes.¶

16 THE COURT: Whiteboard doesn’t come into evidence.¶

17 18 MS. STERNHEIM: I’m not saying it’s coming into evidence.¶

19 20 THE COURT: She can draw on it, but I don’t see a need to take a picture.¶

21 22 23 MS. STERNHEIM: I’m only saying if the Court wished there to be a — part of the record. But if the Court does not, that’s fine.¶

24 25 THE COURT: I’m sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking for it to be part of the record.¶

4 5 MS. STERNHEIM: No. I’m just saying that there’s - she will be describing it and we will make sure it gets in the record. But I did not know if the Court wished there to be it as sort of a marked exhibit for identification just for the record, not in the record.¶

6 THE COURT: I’ve never done that.¶

7 MS. STERNHEIM: Then that’s fine. I’m just¶

8 9 THE COURT: If somebody requests it, I’m happy to hear the request, but it’s not something I’ve ever —¶

10 11 MS. STERNHEIM: Then it’s not necessary. I did not know if the Court would prefer that.¶

12 THE COURT: All right.¶

13 14 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if the Court would like, I have just 3500 material for the witness in paper copy.¶

15 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.¶

16 17 MR. EVERDELL: I also have a copy for the witness which I can put in the box.¶

18 THE COURT: Yes. Okay.¶

19 Can we get our jury. Yes. Thank you,¶

20 21 Who will call the witness, just so I can designate the right person to call the first witness?¶

22 MR. EVERDELL: I will be calling the first witness.¶

23 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.¶

24 25 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I’ll check if the witness is there.¶

Not yet. Thank you.¶

Bring in the jury.¶

THE MARSHAL: Are you ready for her? She’s outside.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, we’ll check —¶

THE COURT: Of course. Thank you.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. Please be seated. Good morning, members of the jury. Nice to see you. All right. I hope everyone is well. We will proceed with the next phase of the case.¶

Mr. Everdell, the defense may call its first witness.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor. The defense calls Kimberly Espinoza.¶

THE COURT: may come forward.¶

THE COURT: Come forward into the box, you can take your seat, you may remove your mask, and please state and spell your name for the record.¶

THE WITNESS: My name is and it’s spelled C-i-m-b-e-r-l-y E-s-p-i-n-o-s-a.¶

THE COURT: Thank you. I will ask you, if you can, pull up as close to the mic as you can and please speak directly into the microphone. Thank you.¶

Mr. Everdell, you may inquire.¶

Q. Good morning,¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. Good morning.¶

Q. how old are you?¶

A. 55.¶

Q. And where do you live?¶

A. I live in California.¶

Q. How far did you go in school?¶

A. About a year and a half of college.¶

Q. Are you married?¶

Q. And do you work currently?¶

Q. What is your current job?¶

A. I’m an executive assistant to the CEO of a global company.¶

Q. Is that in California?¶

Q. And how long have you been doing that job?¶

A. It will be 10 years.¶

Q. I want to direct your attention now to October of 1996.¶

A. Okay.¶

Q. About how old were you in October 1996?¶

A. 28.¶

Q. And where were you living around that time?¶

A. I was living in Midtown.¶

THE COURT: Pausing for technical issues. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr. Everdell.¶

4 Q. , I actually want to jump back for a second. You mentioned your current job is an executive assistant for a CEO; is that right?¶

6 Q. Can you describe generally what you do in that position.¶

7 8 9 10 11 A. I am basically the gatekeeper for the CEO. All appointments are scheduled through me, I book a lot of travel, book a lot of meetings. I’m also, I guess, the senior executive assistant supervising about six other executive assistants for the company.¶

12 Q. Now I will direct your attention back to October of 1996.¶

13 Say again where you were living around that time.¶

14 15 16 17 A. Well, I moved from California to New York, and when I first moved to New York, I lived on the Upper East Side. I previously said Midtown, but that’s because I moved from the Upper East Side to Midtown during my employment.¶

18 Q. But you started out on the Upper East Side. Okay.¶

19 Did you get a job when you came to New York?¶

21 Q. And what job did you get at that time?¶

22 23 24 A. I was hired by J. Epstein & Co. for the legal team, legal counsel being Jeff Schantz and Darren Indyke. I was hired as the legal assistant, the legal admin.¶

25 Q. And J Epstein & Co. was whose company?¶

4 5 6 A. Yes. I was previously — before I came here, I was an executive assistant to the CEO of a small startup technology company for about two years before I moved here.¶

7 8 Q. And how did you find the job with Jeffrey Epstein’s company?¶

9 10 11 12 13 A. One of the papers, either the New York Times or the Daily News, I’m not sure, but it was an ad that I answered or responded to by calling a job agency, and I interviewed with the job agency who sent me to two or three places to interview in a day and one of them was J. Epstein & Co.¶

14 15 Q. Did you have to interview with anybody at the company to get the job? J. Epstein¶

17 Q. Who did you interview with?¶

18 19 A. I interviewed with four people. First it was Jeff and Darren themselves —¶

20 Q. Let me pause you there. Can you say their full names?¶

21 A. Jeff Schantz and Darren Indyke.¶

22 Q. Who were they?¶

23 A. They were the legal counsel representing Jeffrey Epstein.¶

24 Q. And who else, who were the other two?¶

25 A. And then I passed the cut, I guess, from Darren and Jeff,¶

A. Jeffrey Epstein’s company.¶

Q. And had you held any jobs as of this type of assistant before working for Mr. Epstein?¶

and was asked to interview with Ghislaine Maxwell.¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 A. Yeah. It was rather unique. She had been running around doing errands and wasn’t able to make it up to the office where I had been interviewed with Jeff and Darren, and so she had asked if — the receptionist asked me if it would be okay if I can come down and have the interview in the back of the sedan that was driven by a chauffeur. So our interview took place driving around Manhattan in the back of a limousine.¶

10 Q. And how did that interview go?¶

11 12 13 A. It went well. It was a different interview than I had experienced before, so I liked it, it was fun and I liked meeting Ghislaine.¶

14 15 Q. Did you meet with anybody else or interview with anybody else after your interview with Ghislaine?¶

16 17 18 A. Yes. After I passed that test, I was allowed to meet with Jeffrey Epstein, who would make the final decision on whether I would be hired or not.¶

19 Q. And how did that interview go?¶

20 21 22 23 A. And I interviewed back at the office with Jeffrey Epstein after waiting for a few hours for him. And when he came, we had a normal interview, if will you, and I left. And I found out the next day that I was given a job offer.¶

24 25 Q. Now you mentioned that you were — did you take the job? Okay.¶

Q. And can you describe that interview.¶

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Could you state the answer.¶

4 A. Okay.¶

5 6 Q. You mentioned before that the job you got was with the legal counsel with Jeffrey Epstein?¶

8 Q. Did your job change at any point?¶

9 A. It did.¶

10 Q. How did it change?¶

11 12 13 14 15 16 A. One day, Ghislaine’s assistant had called in sick or was on vacation a day or — a day or a week or something and I was filling in for Ghislaine. After my fill-in, she decided that she would like me to support her. So I switched after getting conversations with Jeff and Darren to make sure they were okay that I go and work for Ghislaine instead.¶

17 Q. And so your position changed at that point?¶

19 Q. And what was the new position?¶

20 A. It would be the executive assistant to Ghislaine.¶

21 22 Q. And how long did you work as Ghislaine’s executive assistant?¶

23 A. I would say approximately six years.¶

24 Q. So from roughly when to when in years?¶

25 A. Probably November of 1996 to the end of the summer of 2002.¶

A. Yes, I did take the job.¶

Q. Be sure to state the answer as we can’t do nodding.¶

4 Q. In the roughly six or so years that you worked with Ghislaine, about how much time did you spend with her and work with her?¶

5 6 7 A. I spent a lot of time with her in the office. So she would come into the office almost every day. I was in the office every day. We worked together just about every day.¶

8 Q. And you mentioned the office. Where was the office?¶

9 A. The office on 457 Madison Avenue.¶

10 11 Q. In the time that you worked with her, did you get to know her during that time?¶

13 Q. What was your impression of Ghislaine?¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A. I highly respected Ghislaine. I kind of — no, not kind of. I looked up to her very much. And I actually learned a lot from her as far as administrative and being able to handle a lot of calls, a lot of duties. It was a very high-volume work — lots of work to do as far as arrangements to be made. I attribute my career right now as an executive assistant to what I learned at supporting Ghislaine.¶

21 Q. And how did she treat you as an employee?¶

22 A. She treated me fair and nice and it was fun.¶

23 24 Q. What did you think of your experience working for Ghislaine?¶

25 A. Well, she was demanding, in a way, where, you know, every¶

Something like that. Summer to fall.¶

4 task that was given needed to be done as soon as possible, if not yesterday, and I enjoyed that challenge. But I was able to do my job and do everything that was needed to be done in a day. So it worked well.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Did you have any contact with Ghislaine after you stopped working as her assistant?¶

A. Yes, I did.¶

Q. What sort of contact did you have?¶

A. Kind of milestone contacts, birthday wishes, Christmas wishes. I asked for a couple of letter of references, personal references for future jobs after I left Epstein & Co.¶

Q. You mentioned birthday wishes. Do you remember when Ghislaine’s birthday was?¶

A. Absolutely.¶

Q. When was it?¶

A. Christmas day, 12/25.¶

Q. Do you remember what year that was?¶

A. She’s about five years older than me, so ‘61.¶

Q. Would you recognize Ghislaine today?¶

A. Of course.¶

Q. Would you look around the courtroom, please, and do you see Ghislaine Maxwell in the courtroom today?¶

A. I do.¶

Q. Will you please point her out and identify an article of clothing she’s wearing.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. She is right across from me right there in what appears to be a purple-hue turtleneck.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Let the record reflect that the witness has identified Ghislaine Maxwell.¶

THE COURT: It may so reflect. Thank you.¶

Q. when you were working for Jeffrey Epstein’s company, where, physically, did you work?¶

A. In the office, 457 Madison.¶

Q. That’s in Manhattan?¶

Q. Did you work there the whole time that you were working for Mr. Epstein?¶

Q. Did you work anywhere else?¶

A. Maybe just a handful of times I would work at Ghislaine’s residence, but that was towards the end of my career there.¶

Q. And about how much time did you actually spend in Ghislaine’s residence, all tolled, roughly?¶

A. Maybe a week or two, max. Not straight. It was just a day here, a day there.¶

Q. Over the course of your whole six years?¶

A. Yup.¶

Q. Did you ever work out of Jeffrey Epstein’s residence in Manhattan?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q• What were your typical working hours in the office?¶

A. Typical working hours for me were about 9:30 to 6:30.¶

Q. Now, I want to focus your attention on the time period when you started your job, so the mid to late ’90s, ‘96, ‘97, ‘98. Who were the people who worked in the office in that time period?¶

A. We had Jeff Schantz and Darren Indyke, the legal team.¶

There was another attorney, Amanda Milroy. There was an accounting team, Harry Beller, Eric Gany, a woman by the name of Bella, I don’t remember her last name. Also another woman named Gee, I don’t remember her last name. We had a receptionist, . Jeffrey Epstein had his executive assistant, at the time was a woman named Maureen when I first started. We had — did I say the receptionist?¶

Q. You mentioned, I think, was a receptionist. Do you remember last name?¶

A.¶

Q. Were there any other receptionists you recall?¶

A. Yes, there was a that came after left.¶

Q. And you mentioned, I think, Mr. Epstein’s executive assistants; is that right?¶

Q. Is that separate or the same as the receptionists?¶

A. Separate.¶

Q. And you mentioned a Maureen. Were there any other¶

executive assistants that were there during your time in the office?¶

A. Yes, Leslie Roth and Suann Pisap.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Who came before who, Suann or Leslie?¶

A. Suann was before Leslie.¶

Q. Was Leslie there when you left?¶

Q. Were there any other people in the office that you recall working there in any of the offices there?¶

A. On a daily basis, I can’t remember if there was anybody else there working on a daily basis. We did have other personal assistants come through and hang out, not necessarily all day, but kind of like pit stops. That would be and .¶

Q. So with respect to , I’m focusing your attention on the 1996, ‘97, ‘98. Do you recall seeing during that time period?¶

A. I don’t recall when I first saw her. I don’t know. I would say it that time. was the middle of my time there, in the middle of¶

Q. You also mentioned a you started seeing . Do you remember when¶

A. That was more towards the end.¶

Q. So in the time period, ‘96, ‘97, ‘98, do you recall seeing¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. Hard to say, but I don’t think so.¶

Q. We’ll talk about those folks in a minute.¶

Can you describe the layout of the office space at Madison Avenue from when you get off the elevator.¶

A. Sure. So you get off the elevator and immediately to your left were the restrooms. Immediately in front of you was the accounting team office, then the reception desk would just be kind of pitched to the right. Behind the reception desk was a hallway where the offices were. The legal team sat on the left-side office, and that was followed by Jeffrey’s office, which was a corner. Directly next to Jeffrey’s office and directly behind the receptionist at the end of the hall would have been Jeffrey Epstein’s assistant, and then I sat to the left of Jeffrey Epstein’s assistant. So we were, like, in a row. If all doors were open, I could see Jeffrey in the corner, his assistant, myself. And then in my office, which was Ghislaine’s office, there were three desks — one was Ghislaine’s, one was mine, and one was the legal assistant’s.¶

Q. Do you remember the legal assistant’s name when you were there?¶

A. Lauren Quitner (ph.).¶

Q. Lauren Quitner?¶

Q. So in the office where you sat and where Ghislaine sat, how many people actually sat in that office?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. Three.¶

Q. Were there cubicles or was it a shared space?¶

A. Shared space. Shared open space.¶

Q. In your time there, do you recall Ghislaine having her own private office, ever?¶

Q. When you started the job, did you have to sign any legal documents or agreements?¶

Q. What did you have to sign?¶

A. A nondisclosure agreement.¶

Q. Did you have any particular reaction withdrawn.¶

What did the nondisclosure agreement mean to you?¶

A. Just not to repeat any of my work. My work was my work not to be shared with the privacy and out of respect and privacy for Jeffrey Epstein, you know, not to share who his clients are or anything that I might be privy to.¶

Q. In your work as an executive assistant for other CEOs, did you ever have to sign a nondisclosure agreement for them?¶

Q. That’s happened in the past?¶

Q. Did you have any particular reaction to signing these NDAs?¶

Q. Were you ever given any instructions about how you could or¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

could not interact with other employees in the office?¶

Q. Were you ever given any instructions about how you could or could not interact with Jeffrey Epstein?¶

Q. I want to talk to you in a little bit more detail about your duties and responsibilities at the office. We’ll start first with the job you briefly had as the admin to the lawyers.¶

What were your responsibilities there?¶

A. A lot of photocopying, filing. That was the gist of it. And taking messages for them if they weren’t available for a phone call.¶

Q. And do you know what sort of functions the lawyers performed for Mr. Epstein, from your observations?¶

A. I don’t know exactly what they performed, but I know that they were pretty important to Jeffrey Epstein.¶

Q. And about how soon after you started your job did you transition to becoming Ghislaine’s executive assistant?¶

A. I would say it was within a month. It was kind of quick.¶

Q. What were your responsibilities as Ghislaine’s executive assistant?¶

A. Making arrangements. We had kind of a routine where she would come in, I’d sit at her desk, she’d give me a laundry list of tasks to do for the day, people she needed to talk to, things I needed to have shipped, things I needed to have¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

purchased, reservations to be made. It could have been a list of anywhere from 25 to 50 things in a day.¶

Q. And what was Ghislaine’s employment role in the office, what jobs did she perform?¶

A. She was the estate manager, in my mind. She ran the properties for Jeffrey Epstein.¶

Q. And did you assist her with those jobs?¶

A. I did.¶

Q. And I’ll get to the estates in a second, but as compared to the other people in the office, where, in your mind, did Ghislaine would fall in terms of importance?¶

A. Ghislaine was very important to me. She was obviously important to Jeffrey Epstein because of his personal residences. I can’t really say in Jeffrey Epstein’s eyes what her importance was, but, again, to me, she was quite important.¶

Q. Well, if Ghislaine managed Jeffrey’s properties, were there other people in the office who handled other aspects of his life?¶

A. Absolutely.¶

Q. Like who?¶

A. Like his finance people handling the money and his attorneys handling his business affairs.¶

Q. To your knowledge, did Ghislaine have any role in managing those aspects of Jeffrey Epstein’s life?¶

A. Not to my knowledge.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Now you mentioned the properties, right. How many properties did Jeffrey Epstein own when you started working in the office?¶

A. When I started working, he had already owned Zorro Ranch, 9 East 71st Street, and El Brillo, I believe.¶

Q. You mentioned Zorro Ranch, where was that?¶

A. That was in New Mexico.¶

Q. 9 East 71st Street was where?¶

A. New York.¶

Q. And El Brillo was where?¶

A. Florida.¶

Q. Did there come a time when he acquired any additional properties while you were there?¶

A. Yes. I believe he acquired a Paris apartment, and he also purchased the island, St.¶

Q. Do you remember the name of the island?¶

A. It was Little Saint James, but the name was changed to Little Saint Jeffs.¶

Q. Was that purchased, the island, at the time you were there?¶

A. Yes. I would say probably the middle of my time there, it was purchased, and it was a humongous project.¶

Q. Please describe, if you could, just that particular project of getting the island ready, what was involved in that and what roles did you and Ghislaine perform?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: All right. You may inquire. Why don’t you start with the latter part of the question.¶

Q. Did you assist Ms. Maxwell in any way with the project. Island?¶

Q. And what sort of things did you assist with?¶

A. There was new construction being done on the island, there were, I think, new swimming pools. But the majority of what I did was furnish the house, furnish the resort style. There was, you know, every house good that you could think of silverware, glasses, towels, beach towels, linens. We had to ship all of that over, all of the furniture, all of the artwork. We even shipped in sand and palm trees and all kinds of things to get the island to what he wanted it to be.¶

Q. To be clear, you shipped in sand to a tropical island, why was that?¶

A. He wanted more sand on the beach.¶

Q. Palm trees, too?¶

A. Uh-huh.¶

Q. When you started when the island was acquired, was there anything, to your knowledge, on the island or was there nothing on the island?¶

A. I think there may have been one building or something. It was a lot of construction going on. We even had a fire department on the island, a firehouse with a proper firetruck¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. When she did travel, would she always travel with Jeffrey Epstein or would she sometimes travel herself?¶

A. She sometimes traveled herself.¶

4 Q. Did you ever travel with her?¶

5 A. No.¶

6 7 Q. If Mr. Epstein wanted to travel to one of his properties to visit, what preparation would need to occur before he traveled?¶

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A. Well, Jeffrey had — we always had the houses prepared, all of the houses prepared for wherever he decided he wanted to go. So what needed to happen was there was bread flown in, his favorite bread that he liked. I think we did butter, as well. Make sure that the houses were stocked. There were certain things from New York that he wanted specifically in all of the residences, and it needed to be fresh for his arrival. So on occasion, it wouldn’t be odd to ship out this food to each of the residences so that it would be there for whenever he decided to show up or go.¶

18 Q. And whose job was it to supervise all of these logistics?¶

19 A. It would be Ghislaine’s.¶

20 Q. And did you assist her with those?¶

21 A. Absolutely.¶

22 23 “Q. Do you recall someone named, I think you mentioned before,¶

25 Q. Who was 4 5 Q. Can you describe a little bit about the difference between your job versus what her job was.¶

6 7 8 9 10 11 A. Sure. She would look after the dog, you know, take the dogs for a walk, take it out if it needed, because Ghislaine would bring the dog to the office. She would carry her handbag and her coat and run out and get her coffee or pasta or whatever. So that’s what I saw in the office that she did for Ghislaine.¶

12 Q. Did work in the office or did she work elsewhere?¶

13 14 A. She worked elsewhere. She was sometimes in the office, but not too often.¶

15 Q. Were you friendly with¶

17 18 Q. how did Mr. Epstein typically travel to his different properties?¶

19 A. On one of his planes, private planes that he owned.¶

20 21 Q. Do you know how many planes he owned around the time you were working for him?¶

22 A. I think three, three or four maybe.¶

23 Q. Did you ever fly on his private planes?¶

24 A. No.¶

25 Q. Did you ever have any dealings with the pilots about¶

A. was an assistant to Ghislaine. I kind of looked at it more like a personal assistant as opposed to what I did sitting in the office as an executive assistant.¶

4 5 wheels up was. Jeffrey might call in and I’d pick up the phone and he’d say, tell Larry wheels up at 8 o’clock to wherever he was going.¶

6 Q. And who was Larry?¶

7 A. Larry, one of Jeffrey’s pilots.¶

8 9 Q. Did Ghislaine ever make a similar call when you were in the office to let Larry know when wheels up was?¶

10 11 12 A. It was directed by Jeffrey Epstein, what time wheels were up. And on occasion, I’m sure Ghislaine also told Larry what time that would be.¶

13 14 Q. Who in the office would most typically interact with the pilots about wheels up times and make arrangements for flights?¶

15 16 A. It could be any of the assistants, me, Jeffrey’s assistant, or Ghislaine herself.¶

17 18 19 Q. And when you arranged the flights or when you had conversations with the pilots, what information did you give the pilots, typically?¶

20 21 22 23 A. That was it. The time — they always, you know, the planes were at Teterboro airport, so there was never a question of where they needed to be. It was just what time was wheels up and where were they going.¶

24 25 Q. Did you typically have information about the names of the passengers that would be on the flights?¶

flights that were going to take place on the private planes?¶

A. Sure. On occasion I would have to tell them what time¶

4 A. Sure. Yes.¶

5 6 Q. Did you typically know the names of the guests that were flying?¶

7 8 9 10 A. No, not really. Sometimes some of his friends would call and ask for a lift to Florida, something like that, but I don’t recall the names or I wouldn’t really know what guests were flying at any given time.¶

11 Q. Did Epstein ever travel on commercial flights?¶

12 A. Not to my knowledge.¶

13 Q. Would Ghislaine ever travel on commercial flights?¶

15 Q. And when would she do that?¶

16 17 18 19 A. There were times where she would either fly to see family in London or she would fly to Miami a couple times. Couple times she came out to California. Just different — just when she wasn’t with Jeffrey, she would be somewhere else.¶

20 Q. Did you help arrange those commercial flights?¶

22 23 Q. Did you arrange commercial flights for anyone else in the office?¶

24 25 A. No, not really that I can recall. Maybe, maybe I did, but I don’t remember exactly.¶

Q. Do you know if Mr. Epstein ever traveled with guests on his plane?¶

4 Q. And what was the name of that travel agency?¶

5 A. Shoppers Travel.¶

6 Q. Do you know where that was located?¶

7 8 A. It was in New York, but I don’t know where. I never was there in person, just on the phone.¶

9 10 Q. As part of your responsibilities as Ghislaine’s executive assistant, did you ever book massages for Ms. Maxwell?¶

12 Q. And where did you book those massages?¶

13 14 A. She had her places in SoHo. She liked Bliss Spa, she liked the Red Door, Elizabeth Arden, places like that.¶

15 Q. Were these professional massage places?¶

17 Q. Did you ever schedule a massage for Jeffrey Epstein?¶

19 Q. Do you remember how many times, roughly, you did that?¶

20 21 A. Maybe ten my entire time I was there. I don’t — five to ten. A handful of times.¶

22 Q. Do you remember any of the masseuses he used?¶

23 24 25 A. I do remember a few names. What comes to mind is there was a Lydia, a Monica. I don’t really remember. It’s hard for me to recall off the top of my head, but if I hear them that’s¶

Q. When you arranged these commercial flights, did you call the airlines directly or did you use a travel service?¶

A. We used a travel agency.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

when I’m like, II, I remember that name.¶

Q. Were these people professional masseuses?¶

A. Yeah.¶

Q. Did you ever get a massage yourself?¶

A. I did.¶

Q. Do you remember who gave you that massage?¶

A. Yes, that was .¶

Q. Was that a masseuse that Mr. Epstein used?¶

Q. Were you ever inside of Mr. Epstein’s residence in New York?¶

A. I did get a tour when I first started. I think I did meet Ghislaine there on occasion once or twice to either drop off something or retrieve something and take it back to the office.¶

Q. And where was the residence?¶

A. 9 East 71st Street.¶

Q. Is that on the Upper East Side?¶

A. I don’t know if that’s considered the Upper East Side, but, yes, it was right off the park, Central Park.¶

Q. Were you ever in Ghislaine’s residence?¶

Q. Did she live in the same residence when you worked for her or more than one residence?¶

A. She had more than one residence or she had moved. She was first on the Upper East Side and then she moved to 65th Street. 4 5 A. I want to say it was 84th Street. I lived on 88th Street, so I remember kind of feeling like we were in the same neighborhood.¶

6 Q. And do you remember roughly when she moved to 65th Street?¶

7 8 A. I would say that would be during the middle of my time there, maybe 2000, late ’90s, early 2000.¶

9 10 Q. And the 81st Street residence, what kind of residence was that?¶

11 A. What kind of residence?¶

12 Q. Was it a townhouse or an apartment?¶

13 A. It was a townhouse with many levels.¶

14 Q. Was that the 84th Street one or the 65th Street one?¶

15 16 17 A. No, I’m sorry. I was thinking that we were talking about Jeffrey Epstein’s on 71st Street. So now we went back to Ghislaine?¶

18 19 20 Q. Yes. Let me be clear. I’m asking you about Ghislaine’s different residences, you mentioned two, one on 84th Street, one on 64th Street?¶

21 A. Correct.¶

22 23 Q. So let me first ask you about the 84th Street residence. What kind of a residence was that?¶

24 25 A. That was a townhouse-type thing. Maybe it was an apartment. It was so long ago, I can’t really recall that, but¶

Q. Do you remember roughly where on the Upper East Side she was living when you started the job?¶

I do recall her residence on 65th Street.¶

4 A. That was a townhouse with, I think, three levels.¶

5 6 Q. And to your knowledge, did Ghislaine always retain her own residence in New York while you were at your job?¶

8 9 Q. To your knowledge, did she ever reside with Jeffrey Epstein?¶

10 A. No.¶

11 Q. Are you familiar with a residence at 44 Kinnerton Street?¶

13 Q. Whose residence was that?¶

14 A. Ghislaine’s.¶

15 Q. And what city was that in?¶

16 A. London.¶

17 MS. : Objection. Foundation, your Honor.¶

18 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

19 Q. Have you ever been to that residence?¶

21 Q. When were you in that residence?¶

22 A. Three years ago.¶

23 24 Q. So do you know who owned that residence at the time you were there?¶

25 MS. : Objection. Foundation.¶

Q. Okay. What do you recall about the residence on 65th Street?¶

THE COURT: I’ll take yes or no to this question and then sustain.¶

MS. : I should also just say hearsay, your Honor.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: I’ll take yes or no to the question, do you know who owned the residence at the time that you were there.¶

A. I —¶

THE COURT: Just yes or no.¶

Q. How was it that you were at that residence three years ago?¶

A. It was my first trip to Europe and I reached out to Ghislaine to ask her if I could stay there.¶

Q. And so you were inside while you were there?¶

Q. Was there a massage room in that residence when you were there?¶

Q. I want to jump back to your work in the office a bit.¶

From your work in the office, do you know whether Epstein gave to charity?¶

A. He did give to charity.¶

MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: I’ll allow it. What’s the next question?¶

MR. EVERDELL: What organizations did he give to.¶

4 5 Q. What did you observe him — what types of giving did you observe him doing?¶

6 7 8 9 10 A. I know that he paid for some of the employees’ kids’ education. He was — I believe that he also paid for other people’s educations. He was a giver. He was generous and I always knew him to be donating to charities and just being a kind person.¶

11 Q. Did Epstein ever give you any gifts?¶

12 13 14 15 16 A. He did give me the massage a couple times. And, also, he had paid for a personal trainer for me to have. I guess that was a gift. I kind of thought of it more as an employee perk. I don’t really think he gave me any gifts, other than when I left. My departure, I was given a watch.¶

17 Q. Were there any special events he treated you to?¶

18 A. Yes. That was going to The Lion King.¶

19 Q. And was this the Broadway show or was this the movie?¶

20 A. The Broadway show.¶

21 Q. And about when did that happen?¶

22 23 24 25 A. I believe that’s when the show first came out, it was a hot ticket, and I recall him being friendly with the producer of the show. And during a time of a month or two, he was sending a lot of people to The Lion King.¶

THE COURT: I’ll sustain with respect to that.¶

Q. Did he engage in any other types of giving?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. And that included yourself?¶

A. Uh-huh.¶

Q. And about how soon after the show opened, in your recollection, was he handing out these tickets?¶

A. That I can’t say. I’m not sure.¶

Q. But you recall it being a hot ticket?¶

A. • yeah. It was new. It was a new show.¶

Q• to? Do you recall anybody else that he gave Lion King tickets¶

A. I feel like he gave them to almost all of the employees if they wanted. It was just something that he was giving out at that time. I don’t really recall who else.¶

Q. I’m going to ask you a little bit more about the office.¶

Did Epstein ever receive visitors in the office?¶

Q. Were any of these visitors female?¶

Q. I want to show you on the screen, this is an exhibit that’s already admitted, Government Exhibit 12, but I believe it’s admitted under seal. So if we can just display it —¶

MR. EVERDELL: May I confer, your Honor?¶

THE COURT: You may.¶

MR. EVERDELL: All right. So if we can just display Government Exhibit 12 for the Court, the deputy, and the witness only. This is already admitted under seal.¶

4 Q. Now, without saying the name of that person out loud, do you recognize the name of the person on that document?¶

5 A. Yes, I do.¶

6 7 Q. I’m going to refer to that person as Jane and you should, too. Okay?¶

8 A. Okay.¶

9 MR. EVERDELL: You can take that down now.¶

10 Q. do you ever recall seeing Jane in the office?¶

12 Q. How old did she appear to you to be when you first saw her?¶

13 A. Probably 18.¶

14 15 Q. And about when do you recall first seeing Jane in the office?¶

16 A. I remember seeing Jane in the office with her mother.¶

17 18 Q. And about when do you recall that happening for the first time?¶

19 A. Probably the beginning to middle of my time there.¶

20 21 Q. And about how many times did Jane visit the office, to your recollection?¶

22 23 A. There was a few times. I can’t really say how many times, but I would say maybe five.¶

24 25 Q. And you mentioned Jane’s mother. Do you recall how many times Jane’s mother came with her to the office?¶

Q. Do you see that document in front of you?¶

A. Yes, I do.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. I don’t recall, but I know that Jane’s mother called the office a lot because I spoke to her a lot on the phone.¶

Q. About how often was Jane’s mother calling the office?¶

A. Hard to say, but I want to say there was, you know, a couple months where it was a lot.¶

Q. And who was she asking to speak to when Jane’s mother called the office?¶

A. Jeffrey Epstein.¶

Q. What, generally, do you recall about Jane and Jane’s mother and their interactions with Mr. Epstein in the office?¶

A. Well, Jane’s mother had mentioned that her daughter —¶

MS. : Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.¶

MR. EVERDELL: It’s not offered for the truth, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Just a moment. I’ll need a proffer.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

(At the Sidebar)¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I anticipate the witness is going to say that Jane’s mother referred to Jane as Epstein’s goddaughter and that that actually caused a reaction, that people in the office treated her a certain way because that’s how she represented Jane to be. I’m not offering it for the truth, it’s simply the effect on this listener and how she responded to Jane’s mother when she was in the office.¶

MS. : No objection.¶

THE COURT: Do you want a limiting?¶

MS. : It’s fine, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Do you want a limiting?¶

MR. EVERDELL: I don’t think so your Honor.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MS. : Objection withdrawn, your Honor.¶

Q. Let me ask you this, , how did Jane’s mother refer to Jane among the people in the office?¶

A. Jane’s mother said —¶

THE COURT: Could you pull up to the mic, please.¶

A. Jane’s mother said that Jane was Jeffrey’s goddaughter.¶

Q. And how did that, if at all, affect the interactions of the people in the office with Jane and Jane’s mother?¶

A. Well, I know from myself and the girls that worked in the office, you know, she was treated with the utmost respect, kind of considered her family of Jeffrey’s. So, you know, we always treated everyone that came in with courtesy and professionalism and respect, but given that we thought Jane was the¶

goddaughter, she was just a little extra special.¶

Q. Did Jane have any siblings?¶

Q. Were they brothers, sisters, do you remember?¶

A. Two brothers.¶

Q. Again without saying their names, did they ever visit the office?¶

A. I don’t recall.¶

Q. About how much contact would Jane’s mother have with¶

Epstein during the time period when they were in contact?¶

4 A. Uh-huh.¶

5 6 Q. And you said that she sometimes visited the office; is that right?¶

7 A. Correct.¶

8 Q. Do you recall over what span of time this occurred?¶

9 A. No.¶

10 Q. Do you know if Jane ever traveled on Mr. Epstein’s planes?¶

11 A. I don’t know.¶

12 13 Q. What was your impression of the relationship between Jane and Epstein?¶

14 MS. : Objection.¶

15 THE COURT: One word, grounds.¶

16 MS. : Foundation.¶

17 THE COURT: You can ask a foundation question.¶

18 Q. Did you ever see Jane interact with Epstein in the office?¶

20 Q. And how often did you see that interaction, how many times?¶

21 A. Maybe three or four.¶

22 23 Q. Based on those three or four interactions, what was your impression of the relationship between Jane and Epstein?¶

24 A. I felt it was a loving relationship.¶

25 Q. Did there come a time when Jane stopped visiting the¶

MS. : Objection, your Honor. Foundation.¶

Q. You said you received calls from Jane’s mother; right?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

office?¶

Q. Do you know why that was?¶

A. I think it was because she went to go work in California for a soap opera.¶

Q. And how do you know that she ended up working for a soap opera?¶

A. She told me and I also saw it myself, because it’s one of my soap operas I watched my entire life.¶

Q. Are you a fan of this particular soap opera?¶

A. Big time.¶

Q. And did you see Jane on the soap opera?¶

Q. After she moved to LA and was on the soap opera, did you have any continuing contact with Jane?¶

A. Only when she would call the office.¶

Q. Any other type of contact with Jane after she stopped coming to the office and was in LA?¶

A. Yes. She sent me a little envelope with headshots, signed headshots of the cast from the soap opera, a few single headshots and then the whole cast all signed.¶

Q. Is that something that you asked for or did she send that to you as a gift?¶

A. I think it was a gift.¶

Q. Do you remember roughly when she sent you those headshots?¶

4 5 6 Your Honor, I would like to approach the witness and show her some exhibits marked for identification. I have a copy for the Court, as well.¶

7 THE COURT: Okay. Marked for identification as?¶

8 9 MR. EVERDELL: Marked for identification as defendant’s CE3, CE4, CES, CE6, CE7, and CE8.¶

10 May I approach, your Honor?¶

11 THE COURT: You may.¶

12 BY MR. EVERDELL:¶

13 14 15 Q. if you could take the documents I just handed you and look at them, the documents that are marked for identification as CE3 through CE8.¶

16 Have you had the chance to look at them?¶

18 Q. Do you recognize what those are?¶

20 Q. Sorry. I couldn’t hear you.¶

22 Q. And what are they?¶

23 24 A. They are the headshots of three of the cast members and then a group cast member shot.¶

25 Q. And is the envelope also there, too?¶

A. I don’t recall. I don’t know. I’ve held onto them for very many years.¶

MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. The envelope is here, yes.¶

Q. Are they the headshots that were sent to you and is that the envelope that they were sent in?¶

Q. And how do you recognize these?¶

A. They’re mine. I’ve had them forever.¶

Q. Have you had them in your possession since you received them?¶

Q. And are they in the same or substantially the same condition as when you first received them?¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, at this time, the defense moves to admit CE3 through CE8, temporarily under seal so we can apply appropriate redactions to protect the privacy interests of witnesses.¶

MS. : No objection, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: CE3 through 8 are admitted temporarily under seal for the purpose of protecting the anonymity of a witness who I’ve permitted to testify under pseudonym.¶

(Defendant’s Exhibits CE3 through CE8 received in evidence)¶

MR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor. Your Honor, at this time, I do have copies for the jurors if the Court will permit me to hand them out.¶

THE COURT: Thank you.¶

4 THE COURT: I think they’re waiting for me. Would you like the jurors to look?¶

5 6 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. May I publish this to the jurors, your Honor?¶

7 8 THE COURT: So the jurors may look at the exhibits in the folder. Go ahead.¶

9 BY MR. EVERDELL:¶

10 11 Q. Look first at CE3. Do you see what that is? Actually, can you hold that up? What is CE3?¶

12 13 A. CE3 is a manilla envelope addressed to Ms. Cimberly, care of Epstein & Co., 457 Madison Avenue, from Jane.¶

14 Q. Is there a date on the envelope?¶

15 16 A. You can’t read what the postage machine — you can’t see it.¶

17 18 THE COURT: Just my copy of the envelope doesn’t have a mark.¶

19 20 21 MR. EVERDELL: Understood. The physical copy of the exhibit is what has the sticker on it. I don’t know if we were able to copy the entire thing because it’s a large envelope.¶

22 23 24 THE COURT: Do you want to direct the jurors to look at a photocopy of an envelope and that is what you’re indicating is CE3?¶

25 MR. EVERDELL: Well, your Honor, I’m actually having¶

, let’s first take a look —¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

the witness hold up the envelope itself, which is CE3. The photocopies are just copies of the envelope.¶

THE WITNESS: It says CE3.¶

THE COURT: Got it.¶

Q. Just hold up the envelope so the jurors can see it. Is that the envelope that the headshots came in?¶

Q. And can you tell from the envelope what the postmark date is or is it too hard to tell at this point?¶

A. Can’t tell.¶

Q. You can set that down.¶

Let’s look at CE4, and I don’t want you to hold that up, but you have the original photograph there; correct?¶

Q. And the jurors have photocopies.¶

First of all, who is in that photograph, using only the names we’ve agreed upon?¶

A. Jane.¶

Q. And is there an inscription on the front of that photograph?¶

A. There is.¶

Q. Without reading the name¶

MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.¶

Q. Without reading the name on the inscription, can you just read out the inscription on the front of the photograph?¶

5 6 Q. Again, substituting the name we’ve agreed upon, can you read out that inscription?¶

7 8 A. Dearest Cimberly, thank you for always being so sweet and such a great help. Take care. Jane.¶

9 10 Q. And just looking quickly at the others in succession, which is CE5, CE6, CE7, and CE8, what are those?¶

11 12 A. They are photos, a group shot of the cast of the soap opera and three separate headshots of three of the actors.¶

13 Q. And those actors are not Jane; right?¶

14 A. Correct.¶

15 16 Q. And just looking briefly at CES, do you see Jane in that group shot?¶

18 Q. And where do you see her?¶

19 A. Middle row, all the way to the right.¶

20 21 Q. So are these photographs in the envelope we just looked at what Jane sent you after she started working at the soap opera?¶

23 Q. Thank you. You can put those away now.¶

24 25 MR. EVERDELL: With the Court’s permission, I’ll have the jurors put those down.¶

A. To Cimberly, with love, Jane.¶

Q. Is there anything written on the back of the photograph that is CE4?¶

THE COURT: Yes, please. You can put those under your seats. Thank you so much.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, shall I continue? Okay.¶

Q. are you familiar with the address 301 East 66th Street?¶

Q. And what is at that address?¶

A. That is an apartment building.¶

Q. Did you have any job responsibilities with respect to that apartment building?¶

Q. Can you describe what those were?¶

A. Sure. First it was managing the scheduling of the apartments, like a calendar, if you will. There was approximately a dozen apartments that Jeffrey Epstein owned, and there were employees that stayed there, family, friends, guests.¶

Q. And when you say you managed the calendar, what do you mean by that?¶

A. Well, that we had a notebook that told us who was staying in what apartment on any day, that way we would know what apartment was available to give to someone else.¶

Q. And was your responsibility to manage that calendar?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Do you remember any of the names of the people who had regular apartments in that building, who regularly stayed there?¶

Q. Who were some of those people?¶

A. Jeffrey Epstein’s pilots had apartments there. Jane stayed there, Jane’s mother, Jane’s brothers. We had — let’s see.¶

There were some other executives that Jeffrey knew. Can’t really recall other names. for a while. had an apartment there¶

O. Who was was one of Jeffrey’s friends, I guess.¶

Q. Okay. Do you know if ever had an apartment there?¶

A. had an apartment there.¶

5 6 Q. Were they regular users of the apartments or did they use it every — how many times did they use it?¶

7 8 A. They were regular for a duration of time, and then it was come and go, specifically for the brothers and the mother.¶

9 10 Q. About when do you recall Jane and Jane’s mother and brothers using the apartments in New York?¶

11 12 13 A. It was right around when I had met her. Again, I don’t recall the date, but I know that it was towards the beginning of my — beginning to middle of my term there.¶

14 15 Q. All right. So if the beginning of your term was the end of 1996 —¶

16 A. Right.¶

17 18 Q. — what, roughly, years are we talking about here, if you can estimate?¶

19 A. Maybe late ’90s, early 2000.¶

20 Q. Okay. The best of your recollection?¶

21 A. Yeah.¶

22 23 Q. All right. Let’s discuss your observations of the relationship between Epstein and Ghislaine.¶

24 25 As part of working in the office with Ghislaine, were you able to observe Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine interacting¶

Q. Now, you mentioned that Jane and Jane’s mother and Jane’s brothers used the apartments; is that right?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

with each other?¶

A. Sure.¶

Q. And when you first started in your job in 1996, what was your impression of the relationship between Epstein and Ghislaine?¶

A. I thought they were a couple.¶

Q. And what gave you that impression?¶

A. Just their interaction together. They were a little flirty; and I just knew they were a couple, behaved like a couple.¶

Q. Did their romantic relationship change at all during the time you worked for Epstein?¶

Q. How so?¶

A. They just kind of went their separate ways. Seems like Ghislaine moved on. I know that she started dating —¶

Q. what, if anything, did you observe at the time that indicated to you that the romantic relationship was changing?¶

A. Ghislaine started dating.¶

Q. Dating other men?¶

A. Yes, other men.¶

Q. Okay. Anything else?¶

A. Well, they would not show up at the office around the same¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

time or leave together, things like that.¶

Q. Okay. And roughly when do you recall noticing that¶

Ghislaine was dating other men and not coming to the office as much?¶

A. That would be probably the last two years of my employment.¶

Q. Now, you mentioned that Epstein had visitors come to his office, right?¶

Q. And I think you said some of these were female.¶

Q. We’ve talked about Jane. But apart from Jane, how old were these females who were visiting Jeffrey Epstein in the office during your time there?¶

A. I don’t know how old they were.¶

Q. Roughly, how old do they appear to you to be?¶

A. Eighteen and over. Young women.¶

Q. And what contact did you see them — withdrawn.¶

Do you remember some of the names of these women who came and visited Epstein in the office?¶

Q. Sorry?¶

A. I do remember.¶

Q. What names do you recall?¶

A. ; Jane, of course;¶

4 5 Q. And what kind of contact did they have with Jeffrey Epstein that you observed when they came into the office?¶

6 7 8 9 A. I didn’t really observe the guests and him together too often, because most of the time it was them being escorted to his office. And the door would shut and they would visit in his office, and I wouldn’t see that.¶

10 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned before.¶

12 Q. Were you ever asked to do anything for¶

14 Q. What was that?¶

15 A. Send her flowers.¶

16 Q. And what kind of flowers were these?¶

17 18 A. I recall an orchid at one time. There might have been another bouquet another time.¶

19 20 21 Q. Based on your — the tasks you were given for her and your observations of her, did you ever get the impression that there was a romantic relationship?¶

22 MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

23 THE COURT: One-word grounds.¶

24 MS. : Calls for speculation.¶

25 THE COURT: Overruled.¶

Q. Well —¶

A. There were others. There were others, I just can’t remember.¶

, based on the tasks you were given for and your observations of her with Epstein, what, if any, sense did you have of their relationship with each other, put it that way?

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. I felt like Jeffrey liked her very much; I felt like they were a couple. They were — yeah, they were together, a couple.¶

Q. And did this happen either during or after the time when it appeared to you that Ghislaine was in a romantic relationship with Epstein?¶

A. I feel like it was at the very beginning of my employment, so I — you know, being new, it could have been concurrent for a little bit of time.¶

Q. Do you know whether or not Ghislaine knew about, for example, you buying the flowers for¶

A. No, she didn’t know.¶

THE COURT: Just a moment.¶

I’ll allow it.¶

Q. Do you know whether or not Ghislaine Maxwell knew about you buying flowers for on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein?¶

A. She did not know.¶

Q. You also mentioned before.¶

5 6 7 Q. All right. I want to direct your attention now to the final years of your employment, okay, so roughly 2000 to 2002, all right?¶

8 9 Were Epstein and Ghislaine still involved in a romantic relationship or was that over by this time?¶

10 A. I think it was over by that time.¶

11 Q. Was Ghislaine still working for Epstein at that time?¶

13 14 Q. Did her employment role for Epstein stay the same at this time or did it change at this time?¶

15 A. Stayed the same.¶

16 17 Q. Okay. Did she have as much involvement in his affairs or were other people working for Epstein as well?¶

18 19 A. Well, there were other people working for Epstein. I don’t know.¶

20 21 Q. Let me ask this: How often was Ghislaine coming into the office in the latter two years of your employment?¶

22 23 24 25 A. Not often. It started — you know, at first it was almost every day; then it became a few times a week; and then it was — towards the end it was full-time she wasn’t coming into the office.¶

Q. Do you remember what nationality she was?¶

A. English.¶

Q. Did she speak in a British accent?¶

Q. Okay. Was there anyone else who was in the office who, for example, was sitting in the office where Ghislaine used to sit?¶

A. That would have been¶

4¶

5¶

6 7 Q. Okay. I want to show you what’s already in evidence as Government’s Exhibit 327.¶

8 MR. EVERDELL: If we can put that on the screen.¶

9 THE COURT: You may.¶

10 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.¶

11 12 For the Court, deputy, the witness, and the jurors, with the Court’s permission.¶

13 THE COURT: It’s a public document; correct?¶

14 15 MR. EVERDELL: It’s not under seal, your Honor, as far as I know.¶

16 THE COURT: Correct?¶

17 MS. : I believe that’s correct, your Honor.¶

18 MR. EVERDELL: We’ll just confer with the government.¶

19 MS. : Just take a quick look, your Honor.¶

20 It’s fine, your Honor. Thank you.¶

21 THE COURT: Okay. So you can publish.¶

22 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.¶

23 24 So we’ll also put it on the jurors’ screens, if we could.¶

25 BY MR. EVERDELL:¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. , do you see the person in that photograph, Government’s Exhibit 327?¶

Q. Do you recognize who that is?¶

Q. Who is that?¶

A. That’s¶

Q. Do you remember —¶

MR. EVERDELL: We can put that down now, with the Court’s permission.¶

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.¶

Q. Do you remember when arrived? was hired, when she first¶

A. I don’t remember the date.¶

Q. Was it towards the beginning or towards the end of your employment, if you know?¶

A. Towards the end.¶

Q. Was it in the time period we’re discussing now, 2000 to 2002?¶

Q. What was her job for Epstein?¶

A. I’m not sure what her job was, but she did accompany Jeffrey around to the properties and was basically where he was. I didn’t really work with her much in the office, so I don’t know what her — her job was.¶

4 Q. Okay. Now, was she, in your mind, Epstein’s assistant or was she Ghislaine’s assistant?¶

5 A. Epstein’s assistant.¶

6 Q. Okay. Who was Ghislaine’s assistant?¶

7 A. I was still there. I was Ghislaine’s assistant.¶

8 9 Q. Okay. Now, in the 2000s, did Ghislaine still travel with Epstein to the properties?¶

10 A. I believe so.¶

11 12 Q. Okay. Do you know, did she travel to Palm Beach occasionally?¶

13 A. Sure.¶

14 15 Q. Did you help her arrange her travel when she traveled to Florida?¶

16 A. Sometimes.¶

17 18 Q. And when she traveled to Florida at this time, did she always go to Palm Beach or did she go to other locations?¶

19 A. She visited other locations.¶

20 Q. Where did she¶

21 A. Miami.¶

22 Q. I’m sorry?¶

23 A. Miami, Florida. Miami.¶

24 Q. And how do you know that she was going to Miami?¶

25 A. Because she asked me to book a flight for her to Miami.¶

Q. From your perspective, did she assist Epstein?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Did you help her arrange where she stayed in Miami too?¶

A. I sort of recall, but I — I — it was a hotel. I don’t remember the name.¶

Q. Okay. But your recollection is you booked hotels for her to stay in in Miami when she was traveling to Florida?¶

A. Yes. I also think she had a friend there that she may have stayed in — in the condo or whatever it was.¶

Q. So when she was traveling to Florida around this time, was she always staying at Epstein’s residence or did she stay at hotels?¶

Q. Fair to say you booked hotels in Miami for her travel to Florida around this time, right?¶

Q. Now, you mentioned that Ghislaine was dating other men in the 2000s, right?¶

Q. Are you familiar with a man named Ted Waitt?¶

Q. Who is Ted Waitt?¶

A. Ted Waitt is somebody that she dated and eventually became a couple with.¶

Q. All right.¶

And do you know who Ted Waitt was, what his job was?¶

A. I didn’t know what his job was or who he was until I met him personally after I had already left Epstein and Company.¶

4 5 A. Boy. 2009, ‘8, something like that. I don’t recall the year.¶

6 7 Q. And was Ghislaine still with Ted Waitt as a couple at that time?¶

9 10 Q. Okay. And that was how many years after you left your employment with Epstein, roughly?¶

11 A. Maybe three years, something like that.¶

12 Q. I think you said you left in 2002; is that right?¶

13 A. Correct.¶

14 Q. And when do you think you met Ted Waitt?¶

15 A. Before 2010. That’s all I can really say.¶

16 17 Q. And why was it that you were meeting Ted Waitt at that time?¶

18 A. For a job interview.¶

19 Q. Okay. Did Ghislaine help to arrange that job interview?¶

21 Q. Okay. And what was the job?¶

22 A. It was like an estate manager.¶

23 Q. Did you end up getting the job?¶

24 A. No.¶

25 Q. Okay. Do you know if Ted Waitt had any children at the¶

Q. When did you meet Ted Waitt personally?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

time you met with him?¶

A. I don’t —¶

A. I don’t know.¶

THE COURT: The response was “I don’t know.”¶

I’ll allow that. Move on.¶

Q. And just jumping back, do you recall roughly when it was that Ghislaine started seeing Ted Waitt as a couple?¶

A. Well, it was before I left in 2002. Maybe —¶

THE COURT: Could you speak into the mic?¶

A. It was before I left in 2002, so probably 2001 or so.¶

Q. The best guess from your recollection?¶

A. Best guess.¶

THE COURT: Mr. Everdell, we’ll break here for the morning, unless —¶

MR. EVERDELL: Actually, if I could just have one moment, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Sure.¶

(Counsel conferred with defendant)¶

MR. EVERDELL: I think it’s a good time to take a break, your Honor, if we could.¶

THE COURT: How much longer do you anticipate?¶

MR. EVERDELL: I don’t think I have very much, but I just wanted the chance to confer.¶

THE COURT: All right. So we’ll break for 15 minutes,¶

members of the jury. See you shortly. Thank you.¶

4 THE COURT: step down and out for the break. Thank you.¶

5 (Witness not present)¶

6 7 THE COURT: Counsel, matters to take up before the break?¶

8 MS. : Not from the government.¶

9 MR. EVERDELL: Nothing from the defense.¶

10 11 THE COURT: I’ll see you in ten in case there’s anything to discuss before we resume.¶

12 (Recess)¶

13 THE COURT: Anything to take up?¶

14 MR. EVERDELL: Not from the defense, your Honor.¶

15 MS. : Not from the government. Thank you.¶

16 17 THE COURT: All right. We can bring the witness back and we can get the jury.¶

18 (Witness present)¶

19 (Jury present)¶

20 THE COURT: All right.¶

21 Thank you, members of the jury¶

22 23 Mr. Everdell, you may continue with your direct examination of¶

24 I remind you, you are under oath.¶

25 Go ahead, Mr. Everdell.¶

4 5 6 7 Q. , directing your attention again to the end of your employment term, okay, in the 2000s, when — the time period when you said Ghislaine was moving on, right, did you ever assist her during that time in hiring any other personnel at the office?¶

8 A. I don’t remember.¶

9 10 Q. Who was taking care of the properties, Epstein’s properties, on a day-to-day basis at the properties?¶

11 A.¶

12 13 Q. Did you ever assist in hiring any other people to help assist with properties at that time?¶

14 A. Not that I recall.¶

15 16 Q. Okay. But your recollection is that was managing the properties at that time?¶

17 A. Mm-hmm.¶

18 19 Q. Speaking of do you know if she ever got married?¶

20 A. I heard that she got married.¶

21 MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

22 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

23 The jury will disregard.¶

24 25 , were you ever contacted by the government in this case, by the prosecutors?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. And did you sit down for an interview with those prosecutors in the case?¶

Q. Do you recall when that was?¶

A. I think it was during the summer of this year.¶

Q. Do you remember the first time you sat down with them? Or this may have been a videoconference?¶

A. It was a videoconference.¶

Q. Do you remember when that videoconference occurred?¶

Q. I want to show you something that may refresh your recollection. Do you see the folder that’s below you on the floor next to the chair?¶

MR. EVERDELL: With the Court’s permission, I’ll have her turn to 3501.063-002, which should be behind tab 2 of your materials.¶

THE COURT: Ms. , are you there?¶

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.¶

Q. Do you have that document in front of you?¶

Q. And if you could just look down at the bottom of the page where there is some information on the left-hand side. Does that refresh your recollection of when you had the¶

4 Q. Does that refresh your recollection of when you had this videoconference for the first time with the government?¶

5 A. Yes, well, there’s a date on here.¶

6 7 Q. And does that generally refresh your recollection about when this would have happened?¶

9 Q. Okay. And when did that happen?¶

10 A. November 2020.¶

11 Q. Okay. All right.¶

12 13 Was that the only time you spoke to the government in this case?¶

15 16 17 Q. Okay. Question about Ghislaine. In the time that you worked for Ghislaine Maxwell from 1996 to 2002, did you ever see Ms. Maxwell pregnant?¶

18 A. No.¶

19 Q. Ever were told that Ms. Maxwell was pregnant?¶

20 A. No.¶

21 MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

22 THE COURT: Overruled.¶

23 24 Q. you said you left the job in roughly 2002; is that right?¶

25 A. Correct.¶

videoconference with the government?¶

A. Last year, I think. So repeat your question please.¶

4 5 A. After 9/11, I had decided that it was time for me to move back to my roots; wanted to be with my family. My brother had his first child, and I just wanted to go back to where I came from.¶

6 Q. And where was that?¶

7 A. California.¶

8 9 Q. Okay. When you left, did you continue to stay in touch with Ghislaine after you left?¶

11 12 Q. Looking back on your experience working with Ghislaine, what are your impressions about the job and about Ghislaine?¶

13 14 15 16 A. I feel like Ghislaine was a very good resource for my own career as far as experience and what I learned from her as far as how to handle multiple projects at one time at a fast pace. I think it helped me to get to where I am today in my job.¶

17 18 Q. And what, if any, are your personal feelings and reflections about your job?¶

19 MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

20 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

21 22 Q. Besides your career path, are there any other reflections you have on your experience with Ms. Maxwell?¶

23 MS. : Objection.¶

24 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

25 Q. In the time — , you are aware of the crimes¶

Q. Why did you decide to leave at that time?¶

4 5 Q. In the time that you worked for Ghislaine, did you ever see her engage in any kind of inappropriate activity with underage girls?¶

6 A. Never.¶

7 8 Q. Did you ever see Jeffrey Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls?¶

9 A. Never.¶

10 11 12 Q. Did you ever see anything at all in the six years that you worked for Ghislaine that gave you the impression that anything like that was going on?¶

13 A. Never. No.¶

14 MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.¶

15 THE COURT: Okay.¶

16 (Counsel conferred)¶

17 18 MR. EVERDELL: I have no further questions, your Honor.¶

19 THE COURT: All right. Ms.¶

20 MS. : Yes. Briefly, your Honor.¶

21 THE COURT: Go ahead.¶

22 CROSS-EXAMINATION¶

23 BY MS.¶

24 Q. Good afternoon,¶

25 A. Hi.¶

that Ghislaine is accused of committing in this case?¶

4 5 Q. You did not work out of any of Jeffrey Epstein’s homes, right?¶

7 8 Q. You never went to Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach house, right?¶

9 A. Correct.¶

10 MS. : No further questions, your Honor.¶

11 THE COURT: Okay. Anything?¶

12 MR. EVERDELL: No redirect, your Honor.¶

13 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,¶

14 III step down. You are excused. Thank you.¶

15 (Witness excused)¶

16 17 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell, the defense may call its next witness.¶

18 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.¶

19 20 The defense calls Mr. Raghu Sud. That’s R-A-G-H-U, S -U -D.¶

21 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Sud may come forward.¶

22 RAGHU SUD,¶

23 called as a witness by the Defendant,¶

24 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:¶

25 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Everdell, you may inquire.¶

Q. You worked out of Jeffrey Epstein’s Madison Avenue office in Manhattan, right?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Good morning, Mr. Sud.¶

Just be sure to speak into the microphone so we can hear your responses.¶

A. Good morning.¶

Q. Thank you.¶

Where do you live, Mr. Sud?¶

A. East Windsor, New Jersey.¶

Q. How long have you lived there?¶

A. Since 2002.¶

A. Shoppers Travel.¶

Q. What is Shoppers Travel?¶

A. It’s a full-service travel agency providing airline tickets, car rentals, hotels, and vacations to customers.¶

Q. How long has Shoppers Travel been a company?¶

A. Since 1988.¶

Q. And when did you start working for Shoppers Travel?¶

A. Since 1988.¶

Q. You were there when it started?¶

A. Yeah.¶

Q. What is your current position at Shoppers Travel?¶

A. Vice president.¶

4 A. Overseeing day-to-day operation and interacting with customers, making travel bookings for them. Whatever is required to do.¶

5 6 Q. Are you familiar with how Shoppers Travel bills or invoices its customers?¶

8 Q. And how does that work?¶

9 10 11 12 A. When a customer calls, they ask for what they need. We make up an itinerary or issue tickets according to their needs and then charge their credit cards for that; or if they are sending check, then take a check from them.¶

13 Q. And do you generate invoices as part of that process?¶

14 A. Yes, we do.¶

15 Q. And what do you do with the invoices?¶

16 17 18 A. Invoices are sent to the customers. And we keep them and put them — enter in our accounting system, which is called QuickBooks.¶

19 Q. Is it QuickBooks?¶

20 A. Yeah.¶

21 22 Q. Okay. And are you familiar with how Shoppers Travel uses QuickBooks to keep its billing records?¶

23 A. Yes, I am.¶

24 Q. Okay. And is that kept electronically?¶

Q. What are your duties and responsibilities in that position?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. And do the QuickBooks records include information about the invoices that were sent to the customers?¶

Q. How is the information from the invoices or any other billing records input into the QuickBooks system?¶

A. According to each customer. It’s different if it’s repeat customer. We make up a profile for them and enter everything under that name, even though they are different passengers, but it’s coming from one place. A request is made, then it’s entered accordingly, or it’s individually entered with the invoice numbers and the date.¶

Q. Okay. And when is that information entered into the QuickBooks system?¶

A. Either same day or next day.¶

Q. Same day or next day as what?¶

A. Of the transaction.¶

Q. Okay. And are you able to search your QuickBooks database for invoices and other billing records related to customers?¶

A. Yes, we can.¶

Q. Okay. And how would you do that?¶

A. It all depends if we are doing it for a company which we have made a profile, or a group we have made a profile for.¶

Then we put the profile name and run a report on it.¶

Q. Okay. Great.¶

And does the QuickBooks system generate a report for¶

that profile customer?¶

A. Yes, they do.¶

4 Q. Okay. Do you ever have a profile for someone named Jeffrey Epstein?¶

5 A. Yes, we do.¶

6 Q. Okay. Was he a customer of Shoppers Travel?¶

7 A. His office was a customer, yes.¶

8 9 Q. Okay. And did you have interactions with his office about booking flights and other travel arrangements?¶

10 A. Yes, we did.¶

11 12 13 Q. Did there come a time when you were asked to verify certain records related to Epstein’s office that you had at Shoppers Travel?¶

14 A. To verify, not as of yet.¶

15 16 Q. Okay. Did there come a time when you were asked to generate a report from your QuickBooks system?¶

18 Q. And when were you asked to do that?¶

19 A. In 2016.¶

20 21 Q. Okay. And did there come a time when you were asked to review that same report later on?¶

22 A. As of now, no.¶

23 24 25 Q. How about this: I want to show you what’s been marked for identification as RS-1. And we’ll put that on the screen for the Court and the deputy and the witness for now.¶

4 THE COURT: You may inquire.¶

5 Q. Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Sud.¶

6 Do you see what’s marked in front of you as Defense¶

7 Exhibit RS-1?¶

8 A. Yes. It was a report run through us on like I said, in¶

9 2016.¶

10 Q. Okay. So do you recognize that report?¶

12 Q. And what is that report?¶

13 14 A. It shows the invoice. It says the date of the invoice issued, invoice number, name of the passenger, and the amount.¶

15 Q. And what customer is this report related to?¶

16 A. This was for file name Epstein.¶

17 Q. And how do you recognize this document?¶

18 A. Because I was the one who ran it at that time.¶

19 Q. And what years does this report cover?¶

20 21 A. Well, if you have all of it, this page which I’m looking at it, has 2005, 2006.¶

22 23 Q. Maybe if we could look now at the last page of the document, which I believe is page 19.¶

24 Do you see page 19, Mr. Sud?¶

25 A. I do see. This is from ‘99.¶

A. Yes, these are —¶

Q. Before you say anything, let’s make sure¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, may I inquire?¶

4 5 6 Q. Okay. And are these — is this a fair and accurate copy of the report of invoice information that’s related to Epstein from — during those dates that I mentioned?¶

7 A. Yes, sir.¶

8 9 10 Q. Now, was this report generated — does this report contain information that was added to the database at or near the time that the invoices that are listed there?¶

11 A. I’m sorry, I didn’t get the question.¶

12 13 14 Q. Does the report — does the information in the report about the invoices, was it added to the database at or near the time that the invoices reflect?¶

15 16 A. Like I said, it’s always entered on the same day or the next day.¶

17 18 19 Q. Okay. And was the invoice information in this report added to the database with someone who had knowledge of the information on the invoices?¶

20 A. Yes, sir.¶

21 22 Q. And was — is it the regular practice of Shoppers Travel to keep this information in its database?¶

23 A. Yes, sir.¶

24 25 Q. And does this report summarize the invoice information that’s kept in the regular course of business at Shoppers¶

Q. Okay. So roughly the records between January 1999 and December 2006?¶

A. Yes, sir.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Travel?¶

A. Yes, sir.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, at this time the defense offers what’s been marked as RS-1 for identification.¶

MS. III: Your Honor, no objection, provided it’s received under seal.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Yes, I should say that there are personally identifying information of third parties, so we ask for it to be received temporarily under seal so we can apply appropriate redactions.¶

THE COURT: All right. RS-1 is admitted temporarily under seal. And you can propose narrowed redactions as necessary.¶

(Defendant’s Exhibit RS-1 received in evidence)¶

With the Court’s permission, I will hand out copies to the jury.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Thank you.¶

With the Court’s permission, I’ll publish this to the jury.¶

THE COURT: Ms. MI¶

MS. M: No objection, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Okay. The jury may open the folder and take a look. It’s RS-1, which has been admitted.¶

Q. All right.¶

Mr. Sud, do you still have RS-1 in front of you?¶

4 Q. I’ll just ask you a few questions about this document.¶

5 6 This is what comes from your QuickBooks system; correct?¶

7 A. Yes, sir.¶

8 9 Q. And you said this is for related to the customer Jeffrey Epstein?¶

10 A. Yes, sir.¶

11 12 Q. If we just look at the first page, you see the column that says “type”?¶

13 A. Yeah.¶

14 Q. What does that refer to?¶

15 A. It’s an invoice.¶

16 Q. Okay. And the date refers to what?¶

17 A. The date, when it was issued.¶

18 Q. When the invoice was issued?¶

19 A. Yeah.¶

20 21 THE COURT: Mr. Sud, could I ask you to pull the microphone a little closer to you. Thank you so much.¶

22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry about that.¶

23 THE COURT: That’s okay.¶

24 Q. So the date is the date the invoice was issued?¶

25 A. Yeah.¶

Q. And then number or num, what does that refer to?¶

4 A. That’s the name of the passenger.¶

5 6 7 Q. Okay. I don’t want you to say any of the names, but that reflects the name of the passenger who the ticket was purchased for?¶

9 Q. Okay. “Amount,” what does that refer to?¶

10 A. That was the amount of that particular invoice.¶

11 Q. Okay. And then balance, what does that refer to?¶

12 13 A. That’s just a carry forward same number. If you keep saying — balance keeps adding up.¶

14 15 16 Q. Okay. And again, these are records for Epstein from January 1999 on the last page to December of 2006 on the first page, right?¶

17 A. Yes, sir.¶

18 MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.¶

19 THE COURT: You may.¶

20 (Counsel conferred)¶

21 22 MR. EVERDELL: I have no further questions, your Honor.¶

23 THE COURT: Ms. IIII.¶

24 MS. M: Very briefly, your Honor.¶

25 THE COURT: Go ahead.¶

A. The number of the invoice.¶

Q. And do you see where it says “name”?¶

CROSS-EXAMINATION¶

4 A. Good morning.¶

5 Q. Just to be clear, you began booking travel for¶

6 Mr. Epstein’s office in 1999; is that right?¶

7 A. Yes,¶

8 Q. Okay. So you didn’t book any travel for Mr. Epstein’s¶

9 office before 1999?¶

10 A. , if we did, I do not have any records for that.¶

11 12 Q. Okay. So the records that we’re looking at in RS-1, those begin in 1999 and run through 2006; is that correct?¶

13 A. Yes,¶

14 II. III: Thank you very much.¶

15 Nothing further, your Honor.¶

16 MR. EVERDELL: No redirect, your Honor.¶

17 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.¶

18 Mr. Sud, you may step down. You are excused.¶

19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.¶

20 (Witness excused)¶

21 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell, the defense — sorry,¶

22 jurors. Thank you. You may put your folders down.¶

23 Thank you so much.¶

24 And Mr. Everdell, the defense may call its next¶

25 witness.¶

BY MS. MI • •¶

Q. Good morning, Mr. Sud.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Turn it over to my colleague, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge.¶

The defense calls Elizabeth Loftus.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Elizabeth Loftus¶

II. STERNHEIM: Judge, I have an exhibit. May I hand it to the government and the Court and put it on the witness stand?¶

THE COURT: Yes. Good morning.¶

ELIZABETH LOFTUS,¶

THE COURT: Thank you.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, if I may.¶

THE COURT: Yes. Please just set that aside until directed. Thank you.¶

II. STERNHEIM: Thank you very much.¶

DIRECT EXAMINATION¶

Q. Good afternoon, Professor Loftus.¶

Q. Please tell the jury why you are here today.¶

A. I am here as a professor and a scientist who studies human¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

memory to talk about the nature of memory, the workings of memory, how people can develop memories for things that didn’t happen or remember things differently from the way they actually were, to talk about the work that I and other scientists have done on false memories.¶

Q. Thank you, Professor Loftus.¶

Please tell the jury what your present occupation is.¶

A. I’m currently a professor at the University of California-Irvine, the Irvine campus. My title is distinguished professor. And I have appointments in a department called psychological science, that’s a psychology department; I have an appointment in criminology, law, and society, that’s kind of a criminology department; and I’m also a faculty member in the law school.¶

Q. How long have you been at UC-Irvine?¶

A. I joined the faculty in 2002, so it’s coming on 20 years.¶

Q. And prior to joining the faculty at Irvine, had you been on the faculty of any other university?¶

A. Yes. Prior to UC-Irvine, I was a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle for something like 29 years. Prior to that, I spent a few years on the faculty at the graduate faculty at the New School for Social Research here in the city. And prior to that I was in graduate school.¶

Q. Focusing on graduate school, please tell the members of the jury what degrees you have academically.¶

4 5 6 After UCLA, I went to Stanford for graduate school and received a degree in psychology, followed by a Ph.D. in psychology in 1970.¶

7 8 Q. Dr. Loftus, are you familiar with the term “curriculum vitae”?¶

10 Q. And is the abbreviation for that a CV?¶

12 13 Q. And please tell the members of the jury what a curriculum vitae is.¶

14 15 16 A. Well, typically, it’s a document that expresses your educational background, career, publications, awards, honors, your professional life.¶

17 Q. And Dr. Loftus, do you, in fact, have a CV?¶

18 A. I do, yes.¶

19 Q. And for what period of time does your CV cover?¶

20 21 22 A. Well, I think I have mentioned in there where I went to college, so it goes back to the 1960s. And then just about everything that’s happened professionally since that time.¶

23 24 25 Q. Professor Loftus, I’m going to ask you questions about your background, research, education, etc. Would you benefit from being able to look at your CV?¶

A. Well, starting with college, I went to UCLA as an undergraduate. I majored in mathematics and psychology and received my bachelor’s degree in 1966.¶

A. That would be helpful, yes.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: With the Court’s permission, I would 4 5 ask that Dr. Loftus be permitted to look at her CV, which is Defendant’s Exhibit EL-1, a copy of which has been provided to the government and the Court.¶

6 THE COURT: Marked for identification?¶

7 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes.¶

8 MS. : No objection, your Honor.¶

9 THE COURT: She¶

10 ■. STERNHEIM: Thank you.¶

11 BY MS. STERNHEIM:¶

12 13 Q. In addition to the degrees that you’ve just discussed, have you ever received any honorary degrees?¶

14 15 A. I have received a number of honorary doctorates from universities other than the ones I officially attended.¶

16 17 Q. Of those universities, are they all in the United States or elsewhere as well?¶

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Some of them are in the United States, like John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which is one of the honorary doctorates. But I also have an honorary doctorate from a British university, from — actually, I think a couple of British universities, from the University of Oslo, from Haifa University in Israel. And I was supposed to be awarded an honorary doctorate by an Australian university, Australian National University, where I was supposed to go to the¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

commencement and receive it, but because of COVID, that hasn’t yet happened.¶

Q. Let’s talk for a moment about any honors that you may have received in connection with your professional capacities.¶

Could you please summarize them for the jury or highlight those that you think are most significant.¶

A. Well, I don’t know. That’s kind of hard. It’s like which —¶

Q. Well —¶

A. — which baby is more important.¶

Q. Let me stop you for a second.¶

A. Okay.¶

Q. You are referring to your CV?¶

Q. Approximately how many pages is your CV?¶

A. Well, the CV is 47 pages single-spaced.¶

Q. Single-spaced. So it’s rather dense; correct?¶

Q. Well, I’m just going to ask you to highlight some of the awards that you are most proud of for the jury.¶

A. Okay. Well, that would be page 2 or 3. Probably the most prestigious of those awards is election to the National Academy of Sciences. I was elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences approximately 2004. And that is one of the most prestigious things that can happen to an American¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 A. I’ve received the two highest honors from the Association for Psychological Science, an organization of primarily academic scientific psychologists. I’ve received some lifetime awards even from the American Psychological Association, which is an organization that has many clinical psychologists as members. Those are some of them.¶

10 11 Q. Is it fair to say you’ve received numerous awards, in excess of dozens of awards?¶

13 Q. And honors as well, correct?¶

14 A. I sort of lump them together, yes, sometimes.¶

15 16 Q. Okay. With regard to your academic experience, do you perform research?¶

18 Q. And what kind of research do you perform?¶

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Over the course of my career, I’ve done many hundreds of experiments. And when I say “experiments,” these are experiments that are conducted in my laboratory with my graduate students or post-docs or sometimes undergraduate research assistants, or they might be experiments that are done outside in the field. And primarily these are studies of the human memory; what happens after people have had some¶

scientist in a field that doesn’t have a Nobel Prize.¶

Q. What are some of the other honors that you are especially proud of?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

experience, maybe recorded a little bit of information about the experience into their memory, and are then exposed to some new information that can potentially contaminate or distort that memory.¶

Q. In addition to the support that you received from the universities of which you have been on the faculty and supporting your research, have you received any fellowships or grants that support your research?¶

A. Over the years, yes. My laboratory scientific experiments have been supported by the National Science Foundation or the National Institute of Mental Health or sometimes other organizations or foundations that have provided the funds to, excuse me, support that research.¶

Q. In addition to research that you’ve conducted, have you had occasion to consult with any government agencies?¶

A. I’ve consulted with many government agencies, yes.¶

Q. Could you please share with the jury some of those agencies that you’ve consulted with?¶

A. Well, I’ve consulted with the Department of Justice, the Secret Service, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service at different points in my career.¶

Q. With regard to the research that you conduct, are the findings or your analysis of the experiments put into a report generally?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. Generally, when we do an experiment or a set of experiments, we will write up a scientific publication, submit it hopefully to a peer-reviewed journal where it will undergo peer review and then be published and be part of the scientific literature so that it’s available for other people to have access to.¶

Q. Please, in a very simple fashion, describe to the jury what the peer review process is.¶

A. Journals that are peer-reviewed journals generally have an editorial board. Members of the scientific community that will review a manuscript that has been submitted for publication, will review that manuscript and will make recommendations to the editor about whether this manuscript is worthy of being published. Is it scientifically sound, is it sufficiently interesting, is it appropriate for the journal, helping the editor to make that — or should it be rejected, because it’s none of those things.¶

Q. In addition to your submission of your own reports to peer-reviewed journals, have you had the occasion to serve on the editorial boards of any peer-reviewed journals?¶

A. Well, over these years I’ve served on the editorial board of many journals. And even today I am still on the editorial board of a few journals. But over the years, many of the major journals in the field of psychology.¶

Q. In the course of your career, have you been a member of any¶

4 organizations those are.¶

5 A. Well, one of my primary organizations with which I¶

6 affiliate is the Association for Psychological Science. This¶

7 is an organization primarily of academic university research¶

8 psychologists, although there are many clinical researchers who¶

9 also belong to the organization. I was president of that¶

10 organization in 1998-ish.¶

11 I’m a member of the Western Psychological Association.¶

12 This is the organization in psychology that covers the western¶

13 region of the United States; so it’s California, Oregon,¶

14 Washington, maybe Hawaii, and possibly some other states on the¶

15 west coast. And I was twice president of the Western¶

16 Psychological Association.¶

17 So those are just a couple of the organizations that I¶

18 affiliate with.¶

19 I’ve been president of a couple of the divisions of¶

20 the American Psychological Association in the past, like the¶

21 American Psychology Law Society, and have served in other roles¶

22 for other organizations, not president.¶

23 Q. Moving on to publications. During the course of your¶

24 career, have you published articles and journals?¶

professional organizations?¶

Q. And give the jury just a sampling of what kind of¶

4 5 6 A. Well, at least since I got my Ph.D. in 1970. But I actually published a few articles while I was still a graduate student with my professors as coauthors.¶

7 8 9 Q. Well, let’s begin at 1970. From 1970 to this year, 2021, approximately how many articles, if you could estimate, have you published?¶

10 11 A. Well, I’ve published over 20 books and probably over 600 scientific articles and chapters.¶

12 Q. And are all of them in your CV?¶

13 14 A. I believe just about everything I’ve published is listed in the CV, and that’s why it takes so many pages.¶

15 16 17 18 Q. In addition to the publications that you have discussed in the books that you have written, have you also coauthored in other people’s books, such as chapters and textbooks and otherwise?¶

19 20 21 A. Yes, I’ve coauthored a number of chapters, but that would have been included in the 600 estimate that I’ve given you already.¶

22 23 Q. Okay. Now, I’d like to speak to you briefly about the research that you’ve conducted.¶

24 25 Is it possible for you to approximate how many research experiments you’ve conducted at least from 1970 to the¶

Q. Can you approximate over the span of your career — and let me stop you for a minute. How many years would you say you have been a psychologist in the field of memory science?¶

4 A. I would just estimate hundreds of experiments involving maybe 50,000 participants or more, but it’s just a — it’s just kind of an estimate.¶

5 Q. Well, let’s just focus on a few of those, if we might.¶

6 7 8 What stands out in your mind with regard to experiments that you have done that have impacted the science of memory?¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A. I would say that one of the major contributions is the work that I and my collaborators have done on the misinformation effect on showing that after people see, say, a simulated crime or a simulated accident, and they are exposed to some misinformation about the accident or the crime that they saw, that many people will incorporate that misinformation into their memory and it causes an impairment in memory. False swayed of the misinformation. It becomes their memory and their memory becomes inaccurate.¶

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 One I guess you could call it a classic study, because it’s in many of the textbooks in psychology today is one in which we show people a simulated accident, maybe a car goes through a stop sign that’s controlling the intersection. And later on we expose our witnesses to misinformation that it was a yield sign. Many people will now claim that they saw a yield sign instead of a stop sign. So they have succumbed to the misinformation in that new information that was presented¶

present?¶

to them and adopted it as their own memory. And that study was published in 1978.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Have you conducted any studies that have to do with language and how language might affect memory?¶

A. Yes. An example of that would be — again, this is also a fairly widely cited study.¶

We showed people a simulated accident. Afterwards, we asked people about the speed of the vehicles involved in the accident. But different witnesses are questioned in different ways. So some witnesses are asked a question like, How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? And others are asked, How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?¶

And we found that people estimated the speed as greater if you used the word “smashed” than if you used the word “hit.” Also we had found that if we use the smash word, this leading kind of biased word, it affected what other things that people remembered. Our witnesses were more likely to remember, for example, broken that didn’t exist if we had used that word smashed in questioning them.¶

So that’s an example of what you’re asking about, the connection between language and memory.¶

Q. In the course of your research and experience, are you aware of any experiments that have actually measured emotion and its impact on memory?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. Yes, there is — well, one study that’s coming to mind is — this is a study that we published somewhat later in the 2000s, maybe around 2008 or so, along with my former Ph.D. student who is now professor of psychology, Dr. Laney. This was a study where we — we didn’t just change memory for turning a stop sign into a yield sign, but we planted entire events into the minds of research witnesses, events that did not happen. And then we measured people’s emotional reactions to these false memories.¶

So we planted false memories, for example, that you witnessed your parents having a physically violent fight when you were a kid or that you accidentally caught your parents, you know, having sex when you were a kid. And once we succeeded in planting these false memories and measured people’s emotional reactions, they were just as emotional about these created memories as other individuals were who truly had had those experiences. So the bottom line there was that emotion is no guarantee that you’re dealing with an authentic memory.¶

Q. Professor Loftus, in devising a research project, do you need to gain approval from any organization or from your university to permit you to engage in that experiment?¶

A. Yes, we do. Colleges and universities have human subjects, review committees. And when we want to propose to do a study with humans, there are separate groups that review studies with¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

animals, but I am proposing studies with humans. It goes through a process of review on the campus. And sometimes they ask you to make modifications in your procedure; other times they just outright give you the blessing to go ahead and do the study.¶

Q. Is there a standard requirement that the experiment that you’re engaging in cause no harm to the participant?¶

A. Well, we certainly — we certainly hope for — yes, that the — when we’re experimenting with human beings, that we are not going to create any — any harm in those participants.¶

Q. And does that requirement in and of itself limit the types of experiments that you might otherwise choose to engage in?¶

A. Yes, it does. It does. So it might dictate what kind - in the case of my work on false memories, what kind of false memory I would propose to plant in the minds of a research participant. So I might want to plant a false memory that something horrible happened that would have been traumatic if it actually had happened, like you were, you know, attacked by a vicious animal. And the human subjects review committee, well, has been known to approve that kind of proposal.¶

But other kinds of studies that might be a little bit more sensitive, the human subjects committee might feel a little uncomfortable about approving, like a deliberate attempt to — to plant a memory, for example, that your father, you know, forced you to sacrifice animals or breed babies and kill¶

those babies, something that you see in these claims of satanic rituals, for example.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Dr. Loftus, this is not your first time testifying, is it?¶

A. No, it’s not.¶

Q. Approximately how many times have you testified in a court of law over the time that you have been a research scientist?¶

A. I’ve testified in approximately 300 trials since June 3rd, 1975.¶

Q. And in addition to giving testimony at trial, have you also provided testimony at depositions?¶

Q. Have you testified in civil cases?¶

Q. Have you testified for both the plaintiff and the defense?¶

A. Many times, yes.¶

Q. In connection with criminal cases, is it fair to say that the majority, if not most, of your testimony is for the defense; correct?¶

A. Well, I’ve only been asked to consult with the prosecution maybe five or six times. But of those five or six times I’ve consulted, only one time did the prosecution actually request my testimony at trial; and I did testify for the prosecution in that one case in Wisconsin.¶

Q. I apologize.¶

Do you have any knowledge of why you have not¶

testified more often for the prosecution?¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. The prosecution is frequently the one that has is putting on memory testimony and maybe wants to bolster that testimony. And the testimony about memory distortion or the potential for false memories is not something that typically fits in their agenda.¶

Q. With regard to the many hundreds of times that you’ve testified, have you been declared as an expert in the science of memory?¶

A. The vast majority of those 300 cases are testimony about memory. Every now and then I have testified as an expert witness on a slightly different issue, usually having to do with human comprehension, but not necessarily memory, like how people would understand warning labels, for example.¶

Q. And is part of your expertise related to the impact of memory on the brain?¶

A. I talk about memory and the processes of memory. It’s the neuroscientist who might be the ones who want to tell you about the hippocampus and the amygdala and how it connects to the parts of the brain. I know a little bit about that and I’ve included material in some of my introductory psychology textbooks about that; but I would defer to a different expert, if you’re talking about matters of neuroscience.¶

Q. Well, with regard to memory though, have you testified about these stages of memory as known in your field?¶

A. Many times, yes.¶

A. II, yes. Yes.¶

Q. Have you testified with regard to the impact of post-event information on memory?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. And have you testified with regard to the construction or reconstruction of memory?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, at this time, I would proffer Professor Elizabeth Loftus as an expert in the field of memory science, the nature of memory reconstruction, and the impact of events upon memory.¶

MS. : Subject to our earlier objections, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Consistent with my prior ruling, I indicate Professor Loftus as an expert in the you’ve indicated. Go ahead.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you very much.¶

Q. Professor Loftus, I just mentioned stages of memory. Can you please explain to the jury what those stages are in the study of memory science.¶

A. Yes. One of the things we know about memory is it doesn’t work like a recording device. You don’t just record the event and play it back later. The process is much more complex. And we study the processes of memory, tend to divide that process into three major stages.¶

THE WITNESS: And, your Honor, I don’t know if it’s possible in this enclosure for me to illustrate this for the¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

jury, but it might help if I could use the equipment to identify the three stages and —¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the monitors have the capacity to be used as a whiteboard and I would request that, for demonstrative purposes, Professor Loftus be permitted to demonstrate what she is discussing concerning the stages of memory.¶

THE COURT: Ms.¶

MS. : No objection, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: All right. If you can do it technologically, go ahead.¶

I just go over and show professor Loftus what we need to do to turn it on. I think we have our able tech person to help us. Thank you.¶

Your Honor, I would ask the screen be visible for the jury, the parties, and the public.¶

THE COURT: You¶

. STERNHEIM:¶

Q. Professor Loftus, you may use the screen if it aids in your testimony concerning the stages of memory.¶

A. So, typically, we start with the first stage, which is called the acquisition stage. This is kind of — and this is a period where some event or events occur. That’s the first stage of the process.¶

But after that event or those events are over, now¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

time is passing and we enter the second stage, and this is called the retention stage. After some time has passed, a person might be asked to remember the event or the events, to answer questions, to subject himself to an interview, to testify. These are acts of retrieval where somebody is trying to retrieve information about the event.¶

And so now we enter that third stage, which is the retrieval stage. So our job as researches in this field is to identify the psychological factors that come into play at each of these three stages that can affect the accuracy of what somebody is telling you.¶

Q. Let me stop you for a second. When you were referring to the acquisition stage, you mentioned an event. In the category of event, is it just something that one sees or can it be that something that one actually personally experiences or hears?¶

A. Well, first of all, it could be just — it could be what somebody sees and hears. It can be a robbery, for example, which somebody is seeing something and maybe hearing some conversation, but it might just be memory from a conversation or memory for some other experience that ends up being critical where you would like to know what happened.¶

Q. So one could actually be an observer or an actual participant or a hearer, someone who hears something in that acquisition stage?¶

A. Yes. Sometimes people, for example, are crime victims and¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

sometimes they’re witnesses, and they’re not the victim themselves, but —¶

Q. Now, after the acquisition stage, is anything that happens after the event, whichever constitutes the event occurs, considered retention stage?¶

A. Typically, yes. It’s after the event is over, so we say, well, that’s the retention stage. I don’t mean to complicate things too much, but I think you can appreciate that actually there can be many acts of retrieval. So there can be a long retention interval peppered with different acts of retrieval. But I used a simple diagram here to illustrate the three major stages.¶

Q. Can you simply identify what separate acts of retrieval would be.¶

A. So after some event, say, you know, a robbery, sometimes people might have a conversation with each other about what they saw and then sometimes the police might come to the scene and start asking questions about what did you see or what did you hear, and then the person might go to a police station and maybe try to make an identification of somebody who might have been seen at the event, and then somebody may be interviewed many more times, may then testify at trial. That would be a standard situation in a legally relevant event.¶

Q. Now, in each of those retrieval examples you just gave, that is coming from an external source; correct?¶

4 Q. Is there the possibility of retrieval from an internal source, meaning within the individual who is trying to recreate the memory?¶

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A. Well, in the example that I gave earlier with the stop sign and the yield sign, we do suggest the misinformation externally, we supply them with the misinformation. But sometimes what happens with individuals is they draw inferences about what might have happened or what could have happened or what possibly happened and they can suggest things to themselves. That’s called autosuggestion where there is not somebody deliberately suggesting something to you, not deliberately trying to tell you, you know, I saw the thief and he was wearing a jacket instead of a jacket, but you, the witness, are drawing inferences that then start to feel as if they’re memories.¶

17 18 Q. Going back to the acquisition stage, what would affect the quality of one’s acquisition of an event?¶

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. At the time of acquisition, the event itself, well, some obvious thing, how good is the lighting, how far away are you, how distracted are you, are you preoccupied thinking about something else. Sometimes, if you’re under the influence of certain drugs. Marijuana is one that has been studied a lot, for example, and we’ve studied it in a recent paper. That could affect the formation of the memory in the first place.¶

Q. So in connection with the acquisition stage, there could be external factors that can affect acquisition?¶

4 5 Q. And there could also be personal or internal factors that could affect one’s acquisition of information?¶

7 Q. Now, going to the retrieval stage —¶

8 A. Retention.¶

9 Q. Well, retention would be —¶

10 A. What would be next.¶

11 Q. What you hold from the experience; correct?¶

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. Well — so, time is passing. I mean, the event is getting older and older, and some other things are important in this retention stage, and one of those things is whether or not a person is exposed to post-event suggestion. If there is post-event suggestion, maybe a little misinformation, it can enter a witness’s memory and cause a contamination, an alteration, a distortion, or even a supplementation of memory, and the longer that retention interval, the older — the older the event is, the more susceptible people are to having post-event suggestion potentially contaminate their memory.¶

22 23 Q. It’s fair to say that one does not need any degree whatsoever to know that memory can fade over time; correct?¶

24 25 A. Correct — I think, yeah, that’s kind of a matter of common sense. But what’s less a matter of common sense is that, as¶

it’s faded and weakened, it becomes more vulnerable to contamination.¶

Q. Now, you spoke about post-event suggestion. Stepping back for a moment and just using the term post-event information, please tell the jury what that would be and what could constitute such information.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. Post-event information can happen when two people are having a conversation with each other about the past and they can influence each other. Post-event information can be supplied when somebody is being interrogated, particularly, if they’re being interrogated with somebody who’s got an agenda or a hypothesis about what might have happened and communicates that to the person they’re interviewing, even inadvertently.¶

The media is a source of post-event suggestion that we’ve actually studied where people are sometimes interviewed on the media or media personalities will supply some suggestive information that can contaminate memory.¶

Those are just examples of out there in the real world, what are the opportunities for post-event suggestion to become available to a person and potentially contaminate a memory.¶

Q. Have you conducted any studies or given any workshops with regards to interviewing techniques and the effect on memory?¶

A. Well, that is typically what — when I would be consulting, for example, with the FBI or the Secret Service or even the¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

CIA, I would be talking about interviewing techniques and other sources of potential post-event information that can contaminate memory. That’s part of what those lectures and consulting is about.¶

Q. And in connection with an interviewing process, would there be a difference between asking what would be an open-ended question where the person being questioned provides the information as opposed to, as we all know, what a leading question is where the information may be provided and the recipient of the question just answers yes or no?¶

A. Well, it’s certainly open-ended questions give you, in some sense, more accurate information. It might not be fully complete, so you might need to follow it up with some specific, more specific information or the closed-ended questions, and you would like to have them be as neutral as possible so that you don’t contaminate the witness. But to get a little bit more complete a version of what you’re looking for — but when you ask leading questions like how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other, that’s probably not a good way to follow up an open-ended question.¶

Q. Now, with regard to the process of questioning someone, have you conducted any studies that show the impact of stress in the interviewing environment?¶

A. I have — no. Usually, when you talk about stress, it’s usually at the time of the event itself. It can be a very —¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

you’ve seen a horrible traffic accident or something particularly stressful happens to you. In terms of the stress at the time of retrieval when you’re answering questions, I’m not sure, you know, to what extent that has been manipulated.¶

I’d have to think about that a little to see if I can think of a study that might help you out there, but —¶

Q. Well, in addition to questioning someone, are there other situations in which there can be the exchange of information that can be suggestive to an individual?¶

Q. Can you please give us some examples of that.¶

A. Sometimes when people are trying to retrieve information, there is pressure to provide more, more details, more details about some particular subject. I’ve seen that not only in law enforcement interviews, but more often even in certain kinds of psychotherapy.¶

Q. Now, talking about psychotherapy for a moment, you told the jury that you have a doctorate in psychology, but are you a practicing therapist?¶

A. No. No.¶

Q. Do you consult with patients in a therapeutic environment?¶

A. I don’t do therapy, but I sometimes study patients. I don’t do therapy, though.¶

Q. So you’re not a psychologist who has a therapeutic practice?¶

4 Q. You just mentioned the suggestiveness at times of psychotherapy. Could you please explain to the jury what you mean with regard to that.¶

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A. Well, there are certain — of course therapy can be wonderful for many people, but there are some practices in some psychotherapy where the therapist tells the patient that the current problems are due to some buried memories of childhood trauma and that they need to be recovered or retrieved in order to heal the patient. Some of these patients — some of these psychotherapists have engaged in practices that have led their patients to have false memories.¶

13 Q. But that certainly is not in every therapeutic environment?¶

14 A. No, absolutely not.¶

15 16 Q. Now, with regard to suggestiveness, are you familiar with a concept called labeling?¶

18 19 Q. Could you please explain to the jury what that means with regard to memory.¶

20 21 22 23 24 A. There is a lot of classic work on labeling, which is if you — if a person sees something ambiguous and, later on, it gets labeled with a particular label, that the individuals will start to remember this ambiguous stimulus as something a little closer to that label.¶

25 In one of the old classic studies, people saw a —¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

something that could vaguely look like it might be eyeglasses or whatever, very ambiguous. If it got labeled as eyeglasses, people remembered it as more like eyeglasses. If it got labeled as dumbbells, people later remembered it as looking more like dumbbells. That’s just an example of how you can label something ambiguous and it will affect people’s memory for what they saw.¶

Q. So if two people, let’s say, are having a conversation concerning an event, and one of the individuals characterizes it in some colorful fashion that the other one may not have considered, would that be a situation where the memory might become labeled?¶

A. Yes, absolutely. In one of our older studies, we found that labeling something as an incident, which is really fairly neutral, has a different affect than when you label the thing that happened as a fight. People are more likely to construct an image of a fight, probably because of that label.¶

Q. Are you familiar with the term memory traces?¶

A. Memory traces?¶

Q. Yes. Or memory fragments?¶

A. Well, I suppose that every now and then somebody might talk about memory fragments. Just, you would have a bit or a piece of information in your memory.¶

Q. And are you familiar with situations where someone might take that bit of a memory and enhance it in some way?¶

4 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

5 MS. STERNHEIM: Okay. I’ll move on.¶

6 BY MS. STERNHEIM:¶

7 Q. Are you familiar with the term forgetting curve?¶

9 Q. Could you please explain to the jury what that means.¶

10 11 A. Yes. I hope in talking about the forgetting curve I’m not violating any judge’s order, but I will —¶

12 13 14 THE COURT: Jury will disregard the witness’s last comment. The witness will just direct her answers to the questions posed. Thank you.¶

15 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry, your Honor.¶

16 Q. So the forgetting —¶

17 18 A. So the forgetting curve. If I were to plot how good is memory as a function of how much time has passed —¶

19 MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

20 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

21 MS. STERNHEIM: We’ll move on.¶

22 23 24 Q. Going back again to the concept of post-event information, you spoke before about post-event suggestion. What would that be?¶

25 A. Well, post-event information is sort of an umbrella term.¶

MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Grounds.¶

MS. : Leading.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Post-event — somebody could supply post-event information that is accurate and that might cause somebody to supplement their memory with accurate information. Post-event suggestion typically refers to a situation where you’re supplying people with new information that is not particularly accurate.¶

Q. Memory has been termed a constructive process; correct?¶

Q. Could you explain what that means to the jury.¶

A. What we mean by that is, as I testified earlier, we don’t just record events and play it back later like a recording device would work, like a video machine, but rather, we are actually constructing our memories when we retrieve memories. We often take bits and pieces of experience sometimes that occurred at different times and places, bring it together, and construct what feels like a recollection.¶

Q. With regard to the experiments that you have conducted, by virtue of the experiment itself, you have proof of what would form the basis of a memory; correct?¶

THE COURT: Just a moment. Grounds.¶

MS. : Leading.¶

Q. When you do memory research, is there a process in your experiment that sets up a basis for a memory?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. In some of the experiments, yes. So, for example, in the study that I’ve testified about already, we show people a simulated accident, so we know exactly what the event was, we know what they saw and that way we can see how the post-event information changes what they remember.¶

Q. And in contrasting that, which you just said you could see, that would be different than somebody who just reports a memory with no visual proof or documentation of it; correct?¶

A. Yes, then you don’t have a record of what actually happened.¶

Q. And somebody who might report a memory may give very vivid detail; correct?¶

Q. And does the fact that someone reports a memory with vivid detail mean that the memory is accurate?¶

A. No, because of false memories. Once they’re constructed in somebody’s mind, either by external suggestion or by autosuggestion, could be very vivid, detailed. People can be confident about them, people can be emotional about them, even though they’re false.¶

Q. So if somebody believes that they had an experience and describes that experience, there is no way of proving that that actually occurred?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Outside of the laboratory, is there any way of proving that someone has an actual memory?¶

Q. Does an experience that may contain some trauma make a memory more reliable than one that does not?¶

A. Traumatic experiences compared to maybe more neutral ones might be associated with certainly remembering, you know, the core of what happened. You know that what you saw was a plane crash and not a warehouse fire and maybe some core details, but even traumatic experiences can be subjected to post-event suggestion that can exaggerate or distort or change the memory.¶

Q. In the course of your research and experience, have you done any experiments that have studied the confidence of memory?¶

Q. Can you please explain that to the jury.¶

A. Oftentimes, at retrieval, when somebody is answering a question or reporting on what they remember from an event, they might be asked to express the level of confidence, you know, I’m pretty sure it happened, I’m very sure or what have you. And one of the things we know is if the conditions are very pristine, not a lot of — not a lot of suggestion, not a long period of time, they’re a fair test, people are more accurate when they’re confident than when they’re not confident. But¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

the problem is when you have post-event suggestion or intervention, people get very confident about their wrong answers, and you can see that even wrong answers or false information, false memories can be expressed with a high degree of confidence.¶

Q. In connection with your experience and research, have you ever come across the term, rich false memories?¶

Q. Could you please explain to the jury what that means.¶

A. So going back, actually, to the typical eyewitness study, witnesses see an accident, they really saw the car go through a stop sign. Later on, you suggest it was a yield sign and many people will succumb to the suggestion. You have changed a detail in memory for an event that actually happened.¶

But somewhere around the 1990s, researchers from around the world started to look at, could you plant an entire event into the minds of people for something that didn’t happen, could you use enough suggestion that you would get people to construct whole events, and we and others have accomplished that, meaning other scientific laboratories, planting false memories that — well, as I mentioned, you witnessed your parents have a physically violent fight or you were attacked by a vicious animal, or you had a serious indoor or outdoor accident, or you nearly drowned and had to be rescued by a lifeguard, or you committed a crime as a teenager¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

and it was serious enough that the police came to investigate all of these rich false memories have been planted in the minds of otherwise healthy individuals.¶

THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, we’re going to break for the lunch hour.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: That’s great. Thank you.¶

THE COURT: Members of the jury, you’ll have about an hour for lunch. Thank you so much. Enjoy your lunch.¶

4 5 Everyone may be seated. Are there matters to take up before the break or just after the break?¶

6 MS. : Not from the government.¶

7 MS. STERNHEIM: Not at this time, Judge.¶

8 THE COURT: Okay. You could step out, thank you.¶

9 THE WITNESS: Okay.¶

10 (Witness excused)¶

11 12 THE COURT: I just want to make sure we have clarity on what needs to be resolved following the break.¶

13 14 15 16 17 On the prior inconsistent statements, I’m going to spend my lunch looking through them, but I’m hoping there will be consultation and stipulation in narrowing so that we can really get down to where there is genuine disagreement after you’ve had some discussion.¶

18 Is that everybody’s understanding?¶

19 20 MR. : That’s fine with the government, your Honor.¶

21 22 MR. EVERDELL: We will try to confer, see if we can narrow the issues.¶

23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. I don’t know when you need resolution of the un-narrowed issue, but my understanding is we might hit that point today.¶

THE COURT: The witness may step down and out for the break. Thank you.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, yes. This does create a bit of a timing problem because it’s possible we would get to the witnesses where these issues would come up, so —¶

THE COURT: All the more reason to work it out.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Very true. And if — well, I guess we’ll address if we can’t work it out with the Court when we come back.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Were you going to offer something there, Ms.¶

MS. : No, your Honor. I saw something pop up on the screen.¶

THE COURT: All right. We’ll come back. We’re going to need to come back early I think to get to some resolution if we need to.¶

And Mr. , you’re going to confer on that so that we can have that testimony ready when it’s time?¶

MR. : We’ll confer on the details about how to make that testimony happen. My understanding is the Court hasn’t resolved the pending motion to preclude the testimony in full.¶

THE COURT: Right. I wanted to know what timing we were talking about for that so that I can look at the papers.¶

MR. : We’ll confer with defense counsel about that.¶

THE COURT: My quick skim of the papers this morning¶

was that there had been some narrowing there, as well; right?¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MR. : That’s the government’s understanding of the defense response, yes, is that it’s narrowed to a few paragraphs of the affidavit.¶

THE COURT: A few paragraphs of the affidavit. Okay. So I will focus my attention on those few paragraphs of the affidavit and try to come back with resolution after lunch if I can. If not, end of the day — is it fair to assume we’re not going to get to that today?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: That is correct, Judge. If we were to get there, we would have to do all the logistics about the Webex and I also would need to see if Mr. is up to it, physically.¶

THE COURT: Well, you should make that call¶

MS. STERNHEIM: I am doing that —¶

THE COURT: Because it will either be today or tomorrow; right?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Yes.¶

THE COURT: Okay. And then what else do I need to consider? Anything else?¶

MS. : Not from the government.¶

THE COURT: About how much longer on Professor Loftus?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: With the lunch break, much shorter. I don’t expect to be very long and I would like to trim it so that we can move on.¶

4 5 MR. EVERDELL: It will either be Richard Barnett or Michael Aznaran from Customs and Border Protection.¶

6 7 THE COURT: Okay. It’s 1:03, we’ll meet in 45 minutes, so that’s 1:50. See you then.¶

a (Recess)¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: And then who’s next?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: I think we need to have a conferral about that.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

AFTERNOON SESSION¶

2:05 p.m.¶

THE COURT: Okay, where are we?¶

MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the government and I spoke over the break. We appreciate how lengthy two of the witness’s prior inconsistent statement contentions are. We were unable, in this amount of time, to try to reach agreement on all of them. The witnesses that pertain to those two would be testifying tomorrow. The one that pertains to Carolyn is here from out of state and would be testifying this afternoon. So our joint proposal, I think, would be to address right now the Carolyn prior inconsistent statement so that witness could testify or be released this afternoon and then, at the close of court this afternoon, for us to sit down with the testimony and try to reach agreement on the two related to Jane and Annie.¶

MS. : That’s correct, your Honor. I believe there are only three statements at this point in dispute regarding Carolyn, so I think we can resolve that pretty quickly. Mr. Pagliuca, I believe, has the list of the three that I believe are in dispute.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. The two that are agreed to are at transcript 3610, 9 through 15 — I’m sorry. Not 36. I have 35 numbers in my head. 1610, lines 9 through 15; 1611, lines 1 through 5. Those correspond to the following statements in the 302.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: I have them. And have you agreed on how they come in?¶

MS. : Your Honor, we’ve offered to stipulate to what the 302 says. My understanding is that the defense prefers a live witness, but we have offered to stipulate to exactly what the witness would testify to if they wish.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: The witness is here, your Honor. It will be quicker just to put on the testimony than to draft up a stipulation and read it into the record. So I think that’s what makes sense to me.¶

THE COURT: I mean, I can’t force a stip. I can strongly encourage when it makes sense. All right.¶

And then what’s next?¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: The ones that are in contention, your Honor, are transcript trial testimony 1564, lines 4 through 7, and page 1565, 18 through 23.¶

THE COURT: Let me just get my eyes on it. Okay. Go ahead.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: That corresponds to 3505, 005, page 1, second paragraph, the inconsistent statement is, ” approached Carolyn at a party and asked her if she would like to make $300.”¶

THE COURT: So what’s in dispute is whether it was at a party or at the house?¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct.¶

MS. : Your Honor, we believe that’s collateral, and extrinsic evidence isn’t appropriate on a collateral matter.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: And also, the quote was read in court, wasn’t it?¶

THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection to that one.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: The next is 1567, lines 7 through 19.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Just give me one moment.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: And the prior inconsistent statement is at 3505, 005, page 1, second paragraph. explained Carolyn could make $300 by providing a man in Palm Beach with a massage.¶

MS. : Your Honor, our view is that the relevant portion was read into the record and then, at lines 23 of 1567 through 2 of 1568, she was asked specifically whether she made that statement to the FBI and she responded, yes, she told me that. So I don’t see how extrinsic evidence would be appropriate.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: I think it’s inconsistent, your Honor. There is a denial and then there is a yes, she told me that, and I think with that inconsistency, we should be allowed to impeach it.¶

THE COURT: Yes, she told me that, and that’s what you told the FBI, yes, I told you that. Sustained.¶

4 MR. PAGLIUCA: The next one that’s on the chart, your Honor, is not at issue.¶

5 THE COURT: Okay.¶

6 7 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: So I think that resolves it with the Court’s rulings. We’re down to the two that have been agreed to.¶

9 10 11 THE COURT: Okay. So that gets us what we need for now and you’ll keep working with respect to the other two witnesses; correct?¶

12 MS. : Yes, your Honor.¶

13 THE COURT: Great. What else?¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don’t know if the Court — well, the Court does not need to address this, but I conferred briefly with the government about the government’s proposed rebuttal expert. I’m prepared to file something related to that, but they may not be calling the rebuttal expert, so we’ll deal with that later.¶

20 21 22 THE COURT: Let’s do what we need to do in the immediate and then it sounds like we could do that by written submission if we need to.¶

23 24 25 So the issue, I’m trying to get my head around. So let me just ask, make sure I understand. I’m looking at the affidavit of Mr. . This is you,¶

4 THE COURT: Okay.¶

5 6 7 8 9 MR. EVERDELL: But as to his availability, we were able to make contact with him and he can do a Webex today or tomorrow, we just have to let him know when. I don’t think we’ll be able to get the technology set up today, but he is available tomorrow.¶

10 11 12 13 14 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I would just say that because of his condition, I have not been able to speak with him and I would like an opportunity to at least talk to him before we put him on. So my preference would be to make him the first witness tomorrow morning because of the time difference.¶

15 16 THE COURT: Okay. I think that’s fine. Now let’s figure out if we’re going to hear from him.¶

17 18 19 So I’m looking at the declaration. And you’ve narrowed to paragraphs — tell me, Ms. Sternheim. I think it’s 17.¶

20 21 MS. STERNHEIM: Let me just confirm with my colleagues.¶

22 23 Judge, I need to access the letter that was filed earlier this morning.¶

24 25 THE COURT: I guess since perhaps we take this at the end of the day. I don’t want to have the jury —¶

Mr. Everdell?¶

MR. EVERDELL: I have an update on his availability.¶

think the substance is Ms. Sternheim.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MS. STERNHEIM: I’d appreciate that so that I can have all of the documents in front of me.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you very much.¶

THE COURT: Just so I can marinate on it. So the basic idea is that you want this witness to testify about one or two conversations that he had with this witness, who we’re calling , the one or two conversations that he had with in which — and his proffered testimony is that, at one point, said, regarding the subject of Jeffrey Epstein, that it, quote, fell right into my lap.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: That’s correct.¶

THE COURT: Let’s start with that one. What is the purpose for which it is being offered?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: It certainly shows motive and bias on the part of . There is a monetary issue here. That is not the statement of someone who feels that they are a victim as much as they feel — it suggests that it’s an opportunity that is anything but placing her in the category of victim. It sounds more like someone who is interested in a windfall.¶

THE COURT: So broadly stated, the purpose for which it’s being offered?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Is her bias and motive.¶

THE COURT: And the government’s objection?¶

MR. : The government’s objection is that this¶

is a collateral matter. It doesn’t go to bias or impeachment. That —¶

THE COURT: Is that a 401 objection?¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MR. : Well, it’s not a form of impeachment of testimony. So I guess it’s 401 or it’s not within the common law motion to show bias or motive. It is not probative on the question of any monetary incentive by whatsoever. There is no mention of money, no suggestion of her motive for doing anything in that sentence. It’s very difficult to parse, without the witness’s speculation, about what he thought might be referring to, which is it’s certainly objectionable and irrelevant testimony.¶

THE COURT: I wouldn’t permit that. I guess the question is just the recounting of what he said, she said, it fell into my lap.¶

MR. : Right.¶

THE COURT: So I think you mean that’s — I think it’s a 401 objection.¶

MR. : It’s a 401 objection, your Honor, and we think it’s extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter because it’s not impeachment about any of the core subjects. She was asked about that on cross, she denied the statement. Her denial can’t be impeached with extrinsic evidence.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, it’s my understanding that motive and bias can be attacked in this manner. The witness said no and we have a witness who says otherwise. To let it just stand is only her statement, which we have the ability to contest.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

bias MR. : That would only be true if it went to and motive, which it doesn’t for the reasons explained. As the Court is aware, I think we had conversation at a Ms. Sternheim had collateral matter sidebar during this declaration at that time. I’ve this testimony when and we all agreed this is a¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, collateral during the testimony of that witness. Having another witness to counter what that witness says elevates it to another category.¶

MR. : It’s impeachment with extrinsic evidence, whether that extrinsic evidence is a declaration or live testimony by a witness.¶

THE COURT: It’s not just the impeachment, it’s not just the question of did she say it or not. Although, there is that impeachment embedded in it. But there is just the testimony itself and the question is whether that’s relevant evidence of bias or motive; right? Isn’t that the analysis?¶

MR. : I didn’t understand the defense to be offering this as affirmative evidence of bias or motive, just as impeachment for those reasons. The defense has never turned this over in Rule 16 discovery, for example, which they would do if it was part of their case in chief because they were¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

making an argument about witness bias, which is just, you know, we’re not raising a Rule 16 objection, it’s just to show the purpose for which this testimony is being used is extrinsic evidence to impeach testimony.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: The papers that we filed last night specifically state the basis upon which we are seeking to introduce this. I made this available at the time of the testimony. It is dated at a time that occurred during the course of the trial related to the testimony of their witness. I don’t see why it is a Rule 16 violation¶

THE COURT: Well, I think they’re not actually arguing that.¶

So, Mr. , for the proposition that the denial can’t be impeached by extrinsic evidence, cited Second Circuit case, United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, “…that a cross examiner is not required to, quote, take the answer, end quote, of a witness concerning possible bias, but may proffer extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses to prove the facts showing a bias in favor of or against a party.¶

You agree that’s the law, you’re just saying that there is not an available inference to the jury of bias from the “it fell into my lap.”¶

MR. : That’s right, your Honor. That inference only becomes available when that statement is¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

surrounded by the speculative mental impressions of the witness, which are not admissible evidence. And the statement on its own says almost nothing is an out of context statement from which, on its face, doesn’t say anything about motives or financial interests in anything.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, can the government really, with a straight face, say that a victim would say, “It fell into my lap.” I think it goes to the weight that the jury wants to give to it and I think that it is appropriate affirmative testimony to be put on in a defense case. They can make whatever arguments they want, they can cross examine Mr. , but to exclude it on that basis I think is just wrong.¶

THE COURT: I mean, I think we’ve settled on the analytical framework, which is we agree, following Harvey, if it is extrinsic evidence, to show bias in favor of or against a party, it’s permissible; right?¶

MR. : Yes, we agree.¶

THE COURT: So it’s really a 401 question. Is there an available inference to the jury, if they believe Mr. , that the witness said that said, “It fell into my lap,” if that goes to bias. I think there is an available inference to the jury. I won’t let Mr. go beyond and speculate as to meaning.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Understood.¶

4 MS. STERNHEIM: There is the statement that told him that the case against Ms. Maxwell was getting stronger because the women were strengthening their stories.¶

5 THE COURT: Okay. Mr.¶

6 7 8 9 10 MR. : So a few concerns about this one, your Honor. This one sort of doesn’t attempt to be a quotation from , so we don’t know the sense in which it’s going to be viewed with mental impressions from. Mr. is not a statement that was asked about on cross examination.¶

11 12 THE COURT: Pause on that point. Tell me the legal basis for the pertinence of that.¶

13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. : Well, to the extent that they are — I guess if they’re offering it solely to show bias or motive, then that wouldn’t be necessary. If they’re offering it as an inconsistent statement with her other statements that she did give on direct, that would not be available since they didn’t challenge her with a statement.¶

19 20 THE COURT: This is why I keep asking what’s the framework, because —¶

21 22 MR. : If this is the bias framework again, it wouldn’t matter —¶

23 THE COURT: Is that the same contention?¶

24 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, Judge.¶

25 THE COURT: So then we have the 401 question.¶

THE COURT: So what else beyond that?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MR. : It’s the same 401 question, although this one is even more attenuated from any notion of bias or motive since it says nothing about her incentives or why she is testifying. She could be testifying for literally or cooperating with the government for literally any reason and make the same statement. It sheds no light on her motives or biases.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: It sheds light on her knowledge that she knows what the other accusers are doing.¶

MR. : That is not a motive or bias objection.¶

THE COURT: I think that’s right. I’m inclined to sustain on that one on the 401 ground. Okay.¶

So I think we’re limited to the first question. So you’ll work out —¶

MR. : We’ve been conferring and will work out a way for Mr. to testify on that point.¶

THE COURT: All right. We can bring in the jury?¶

MR. : Nothing else from the government.¶

THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Ready to proceed.¶

THE COURT: We’ll get the witness and will get the jury.¶

(Witness present)¶

You may take off your mask. Thank you.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. I hope you had a pleasant lunch. We’re going to continue with the direct examination of professor Loftus.¶

Professor Loftus, I remind you, you are under oath.¶

II. STERNHEIM: Thank you.¶

Q. Professor Loftus, before we broke for lunch, I was asking you, had you been involved in any research that dealt with the correlation between the certainty of confidence that one has and whether the memory itself is accurate. Do you recall that?¶

A. Yes, I believe I answered the question. Yes.¶

Q. And are you familiar with the concept that confidence is malleable?¶

Q. Can you please explain what that means to the jury.¶

A. People can express a level of confidence and if they then get some new information, for example, confirming information, something that confirms their recollection, it can increase - sort of artificially increase their confidence in what they’re saying.¶

So, for example, in some research, primarily research done by one of the most prominent people in this field, Professor Wells from Iowa State, individuals would make an identification at a lineup and then be told — and express some¶

confidence like, I am pretty sure that’s the guy. They get some new information, that’s our suspect, or some other confirming information and it increases their confidence in their recollection. And that’s confidence malleability.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. Are you familiar with the concept of prestige enhancing memory distortion?¶

A. Yes, I am.¶

Q. Could you please explain to the jury what that means.¶

A. So one of the things that memory scientists have discovered about memory distortion is that we humans frequently remember ourselves in a better light than perhaps is accurate. So there are studies showing that people remember their grades were better than they really were, that they voted in elections they didn’t vote in, that they gave more to cater than they really gave, that their kids walked and talked at an earlier age than they really did. These are prestige enhancing memory distortions that people routinely make when they’re not deliberately lying, but maybe it makes them feel a little better about themselves.¶

5 6 Q. Fair to say that we didn’t go into great detail about it; correct?¶

7 A. Well, no, not great detail.¶

8 9 Q. And there was much more that you could have told the jury about it, but it would be time-consuming, wouldn’t it?¶

10 A. It would, yes.¶

11 12 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, at this time I would move into evidence Judge Loftus’s CV, which is EF-1.¶

13 MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

14 THE COURT: I’m sorry?¶

15 MS. : The government objects.¶

16 THE COURT: Overruled. EF-1 is admitted.¶

17 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.¶

18 (Defendant’s Exhibit EF-1 received in evidence)¶

19 BY MS. STERNHEIM:¶

20 21 Q. Professor Loftus, just to be clear, you are being compensated for your time; correct?¶

22 A. I am, or I hope so, yes.¶

23 Q. I hope so, too.¶

24 25 You don’t have any stake in the outcome of this trial, do you?¶

Q. Earlier today I asked you various questions concerning the context of your curriculum vitae, you remember that?¶

4 5 6 A. That’s correct. It would depend on the facts of the case and where it was appropriate; but whatever party wouldn’t matter.¶

7 8 Q. And what is the hourly rate that you’re charging for your time?¶

9 10 11 A. Well, I’m currently charging in this case $600 an hour for my time, which was the rate that I quoted when I was retained back in January.¶

12 Q. Thank you. Just a few more questions.¶

13 14 You testified earlier this afternoon about media being a post-event information source; correct?¶

16 Q. Now, media isn’t just limited to the printed page; correct?¶

17 A. No. It’s television, social media, newspapers, podcasts.¶

18 19 Q. And dramatic portrayals would be a source of post-event information, would it not?¶

20 A. Books and movies, yes.¶

21 Q. Okay. Thank you.¶

22 23 24 25 Now, we’ve talked earlier about suggestion. And you’ve talked about studies in which memories have been implanted in your subjects. The implanting of information either in your laboratory or outside of your laboratory in the¶

A. No, I don’t.¶

Q. The testimony that you give on memory science would be the same regardless of what party called you; correct?¶

4 5 6 7 8 A. Correct. Of course, in my studies or the studies of other scientists, we do it deliberately in order to study what happens, what changes it leads to. But out there in the real world, it doesn’t necessarily happen deliberately that people are deliberately trying to mislead other people. It can happen inadvertently.¶

9 10 11 Q. Have you conducted any research or are you aware of any research that has indicated that secondary gain or motive may impact the retelling of an event?¶

12 A. Well, there is some work on motivated false memories.¶

13 14 15 16 17 18 People do seem to be more willing to accept suggestions when it’s going to fit with their — with their prior beliefs or fit with some motives. I’m not sure I know any specific study that sort of shows if people are offered money for a particular memory, that they are more likely to give it to you, but it certainly seems plausible.¶

19 20 21 Q. In any of the studies that you’ve conducted, has there been an analysis of who provides the post-event information, meaning someone who you trust as opposed to someone you don’t trust?¶

22 23 24 25 A. Yes. There are several studies that are in the literature on the source of the post-event information. And just in brief, what people find is — what researchers find is that people are more likely to accept suggestive post-event¶

form of post-event information can be intentional or inadvertent; correct?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

information if it comes from somebody they trust or if it comes from somebody who seems knowledgeable rather than somebody who seems like they’re trying to bias you for nefarious reasons. So the source of the post-event information does matter.¶

There’s even one study with children that shows that young children are more likely to accept suggestions from adults than from other children.¶

Q. And in looking at memory, is there any way for you to tell, based upon your training, experience, and research, whether a memory is real or the product of post-event information?¶

Q. Just going back for a moment, you spoke about post-event information and post-event suggestion. What is post-event contamination?¶

A. Post-event contamination would be a situation where there was suggestive information that maybe led to a contamination. You could have post-event suggestion and have people resist the suggestion. But I think if I were going to use the term “post-event contamination,” it would mean that somebody was exposed to the suggestive information and it actually contaminated them.¶

I have a moment, Judge?¶

THE COURT: You may.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Professor Loftus.¶

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ms. Sternheim.¶

Ms.¶

MS. : Thank you, your Honor.¶

CROSS-EXAMINATION¶

Q. Good afternoon.¶

Q. I believe you testified that in addition to being a researcher, you often serve as a consultant, right?¶

Q. And that entails consulting with lawyers about cases, right?¶

Q. And sometimes it involves testifying at trials?¶

Q. So let’s first talk about consulting.¶

You consult with attorneys in criminal cases, right?¶

Q. And you’ve consulted with attorneys hundreds and hundreds of times, right?¶

Q. You’ve consulted with defense attorneys in criminal cases hundreds of times, right?¶

A. Probably, yes.¶

4 Q. Okay. And of those hundreds of times, you’ve consulted with the prosecution about five or six times, right?¶

5 6 A. That’s approximately the number of times I’ve been called by prosecutors to consult, yes.¶

7 Q. I want to talk about your trial testimony.¶

8 9 You testified earlier that you have testified in about 300 trials, right?¶

10 A. Approximately, yes.¶

11 Q. About half of those trials are criminal trials, right?¶

12 A. It’s an estimate, but let’s say roughly half, yes.¶

13 14 Q. Okay. So you’ve testified in about 150 criminal trials, right?¶

15 A. Approximately, yes.¶

16 17 Q. And of the 150 times that you’ve testified at trial, you’ve testified for the defense every single time but once, right?¶

19 20 Q. And that one time that you didn’t testify for the defense was in the 1990s, right?¶

21 22 A. It was a case in Wisconsin is what I remember. I think it might have been the ’90s, yes.¶

23 24 Q. So it’s fair to say that you’ve made a career out of being a witness for the defense, right?¶

25 A. In criminal cases it’s predominantly been testimony for the¶

Q. About 1,000 times?¶

A. Well, I don’t know about 1,000, but hundreds of times.¶

4 A. Yes, I did, 1991.¶

5 Q. You wrote a book called Witness for the Defense, right?¶

7 Q. You haven’t written a book called Impartial Witness, right?¶

8 MS. STERNHEIM: Objection.¶

9 THE COURT: Overruled.¶

10 A. I don’t have a book by that title, no.¶

11 12 Q. I’m holding up what’s been marked for identification, Professor Loftus. Can you see that?¶

13 14 A. I had eye surgery about six weeks ago and I can sort of see it.¶

15 THE COURT: You¶

16 ■• Thank you, your Honor.¶

17 THE COURT: After showing it to the defense.¶

18 MS. STERNHEIM: No need to see it.¶

19 THE COURT: When you return to the podium,¶

20 Ms. you’ll give an identification mark please.¶

21 MS. : Yes, your Honor.¶

22 23 It’s been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 1500.¶

24 THE COURT: Okay.¶

25 Q. That is your book, Witness for the Defense, right?¶

defense, yes.¶

Q. You wrote a book about some of your experiences testifying at trial, right?¶

4 5 6 7 Q. Okay. And in your book, Witness for the Defense, isn’t it true that you wrote: Should psychologists in a court of law act as an advocate for the defense or an impartial educator? My answer to that question, if I am completely honest, is both.¶

8 A. Could you refer me to the page number?¶

9 10 Q. Sure. It’s on page 238, I believe it’s Government Exhibit 1518.¶

11 12 13 MS. : Your Honor, I have a binder with materials that I’m happy to provide at this time if that would be helpful.¶

15 A. I’ve turned to page 238.¶

16 THE COURT: Do you have for the defense?¶

17 MS. : Yes.¶

18 THE COURT: Okay.¶

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Dr. Loftus, I believe there is a binder now that you have. The book works as well, but it is marked as Government Exhibit 1518. And the question I had asked was in your book Witness for the Defense, isn’t it true that you wrote: Should psychologists in a court of law act as an advocate for the defense or an impartial educator? My answer to that question, if I’m completely honest, is both.¶

Q. That’s a photo of you on the cover, right?¶

A. Very old photo, yes.¶

It’s just a yes or no, is that what you wrote?¶

A. That is a quote, but it leaves out the context of — in which that quote is quoted.¶

4 5 Q. Professor Loftus, when you testify at a trial, you don’t sit in the courtroom when you’re not testifying, right?¶

6 A. I don’t usually. Occasionally I do.¶

7 8 Q. You were not present for any of the testimony in this case, right?¶

9 A. Well, I was not in the courtroom.¶

10 11 Q. Right. You were not present in the courtroom for any of the testimony in this case, right?¶

12 A. I was not present in the courtroom; correct.¶

13 Q. Okay. I want to talk about your compensation.¶

14 15 You are being paid or you will be paid for your work In this case, right?¶

16 A. I’m being compensated for my time, yes.¶

17 18 Q. And as you sit here, you’re billing for your services, right?¶

19 A. I’m sorry, could you repeat that?¶

20 21 Q. Sure. As you sit here, you’re billing for your services, right?¶

23 Q. And you’re charging the defendant $600 an hour, right?¶

24 A. Correct.¶

25 Q. And you said earlier that you’ve testified at over 300 4 A. June 3rd, yes.¶

5 6 Q. And you’ve also consulted on hundreds and hundreds of cases, right?¶

7 A. I have, yes.¶

8 9 Q. And in most of those cases or many of those cases, you were compensated for your work, right?¶

10 A. In many of them, yes.¶

11 12 Q. You’ve served as a paid expert for the defense many times, right?¶

13 A. I have, yes.¶

14 15 Q. You served as a paid expert for some high-profile or famous defendants, right?¶

16 A. I have.¶

17 18 Q. It’s fair to say that over the years, criminal defendants have paid you millions of dollars for your services, right?¶

19 A. I don’t know if it’s millions of dollars, no.¶

20 21 Q. When you started testifying as an expert witness back in 1975, you didn’t charge $600 an hour, right?¶

22 A. I started by charging nothing because I wanted to learn.¶

23 24 Q. Right. You charged much less than that, if anything at all?¶

25 A. Correct.¶

trials, right?¶

A. In 50 years, yes.¶

Q. The first one was in about 1975, I believe you said?¶

4 5 Q. And in the years since 1975, you’ve testified in some high-profile trials, right?¶

7 8 Q. In some instances your testimony has drawn media attention, right?¶

9 A. Sometimes, yes.¶

10 11 Q. There’s been news articles about you and the testimony that you’ve given, right?¶

12 A. Sometimes, yes.¶

13 Q. And that’s helped raise your public profile, right?¶

14 MS. STERNHEIM: I would object, your Honor.¶

15 THE COURT: Just a moment.¶

16 17 The pending question is has this helped raise your public profile.¶

18 Overruled. You may answer.¶

19 A. Overruled. Open my mouth and speak. Okay.¶

20 21 22 I wouldn’t put it that way. I think my profile is I’m not sure what it means, my public profile. What do you mean by that?¶

23 24 Q. Well, your testimony has helped you get hired by other defense attorneys, right?¶

25 A. It’s certainly possible that somebody has heard of my¶

Q. Right. And over time, your hourly rate has increased, right?¶

4 Q. Your testimony — you’ve used your testimony from high-profile cases to market yourself, right?¶

5 MS. STERNHEIM: Objection.¶

6 THE COURT: One-word grounds.¶

7 MS. STERNHEIM: Relevance.¶

8 THE COURT: Overruled.¶

9 A. I don’t market myself at all.¶

10 11 Q. Well, you’ve used your testimony from high-profile cases to attempt to earn more money, isn’t that right?¶

12 A. That’s false.¶

13 14 Q. Okay. So you have provided defense attorneys with the names of cases at which you’ve testified, right?¶

15 16 A. Well, I have provided the names of cases when to show that the testimony has been admitted in those cases.¶

17 18 Q. But you’ve provided the list of the names of cases at which you’ve testified for defense attorneys, right?¶

19 20 A. When asked to do that, I’ve done that, yes. Only when asked.¶

21 22 Q. You’ve testified on behalf of many famous and high-profile defendants, right?¶

23 A. A few, yes.¶

24 Q. People who can afford to pay your hourly rate, right?¶

25 A. And many who — who — in the past who couldn’t.¶

testimony in one case and thought that maybe they would hire me in their case, yes. I would think that might be true.¶

Q. You testified for Harvey Weinstein in his criminal trial, right?¶

A. I testified —¶

THE COURT: Just a moment.¶

I’ll hear from you.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Objection.¶

4 THE COURT: Is her testimony on her CV?¶

5 MS. STERNHEIM: No.¶

6 THE COURT: I just wanted to know that.¶

7 MS. STERNHEIM: I don’t believe it has testimony.¶

8 9 It’s a CV of her academic pursuits, her awards, her publications.¶

10 THE COURT: Not the cases she’s testified.¶

11 MS. STERNHEIM: No.¶

12 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.¶

13 14 15 16 17 18 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, I certainly understand the desire on the part of the government to do some character assassination. But the fact of the matter, testifying in a high-profile case is being used in a way that is very insidious here. I don’t understand what the purpose is. Are they getting into her testimony in that case?¶

19 MS. Your Honor, I’m happy to respond.¶

20 21 22 23 24 So the witness has financial incentive to testify on behalf of the defense. It’s not a question of just getting paid by the defendant in this case. Over her career she has used her testimony as a defense — as an expert for the defense to testify at trials.¶

25 In her book she has a chapter, the book that she has¶

(At sidebar)¶

THE COURT: Is her testimony on her CV?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Judge —¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

right up there, there’s a chapter in that book — multiple chapters dedicated to high-profile cases in which she’s testified.¶

THE COURT: Wait. So I allowed it because it goes to motive, an ironic objection, but it goes — if she has a motive to testify in high-profile cases, that’s monetary. I suppose the inference is available as to her motive and credibility, so that’s why I allowed it.¶

Why are we going into specific cases in which she testified?¶

MS. : Your Honor, it’s not an accident. She’s testifying here on the heels of her testimony at the Harvey Weinstein trial. I would note that in multiple instances, for instance, when Jane was testifying, the defense insisted on a need to name a particular name of a pageant. It wasn’t enough to just say national pageant. Here we are, it’s the same issue that’s coming up, your Honor, is that the relevance of this detail. It is relevant, your Honor, that this is after she did that. She testified in the Harvey Weinstein trial. There is a New Yorker Magazine article that’s published on her in which she participates in the interview and she —¶

THE COURT: You’re just trying to associate her with other people who have bad reputations. And frankly, Ms. to suggest otherwise is to show a lack of¶

respect for the Court. You could, Ask after a trial, did you have a profile done about you? It’s obvious what you’re trying to do. It’s impermissible on 403 grounds, 401/403 grounds. There’s lots of ways of asking it without trying to just draw associations in the jurors’ minds with other defendants for whom she’s testified.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

So you won’t do that. Sustained.¶

You can ask general questions that go to incentive to testify in high-profile, I’ll allow it. But don’t do what you’re doing.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

BY MS. :¶

Q. After your testimony at certain high-profile trials, you’ve had articles written about you; isn’t that right?¶

A. I’ve had articles written about me or my work for decades.¶

Q. The question was — and let me ask it a little differently.¶

After your testimony at certain trials, you’ve participated in interviews with the press about your testimony as a defense witness; isn’t that right?¶

A. I have. If somebody asks me questions about it, yes.¶

THE COURT: Could you pull up a little closer to the microphone, please. Thank you.¶

THE WITNESS: Sorry, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: That’s okay. Thank you.¶

Q. And in your book, Witness for the Defense, you have — you devote multiple chapters to different individuals on whose behalf you testified as a defense witness; isn’t that right?¶

Q. And each time you’ve done you’ve testified on behalf of famous high-profile defendants, it’s brought you more business, right?¶

A. I don’t know if — maybe.¶

Q. Your work focuses on research and experiments, right?¶

A. The scientific work, yes, primarily.¶

Q. You’re not a clinician, right?¶

4 Q. You don’t see patients, right?¶

6 Q. You’ve never treated a single patient, right?¶

7 A. Correct.¶

8 Q. You’ve never seen a patient or client for therapy, right?¶

9 A. No, not for therapy, no.¶

10 Q. You do not treat victims of traumatic events, right?¶

11 A. I don’t officially treat anyone.¶

12 13 14 Q. Now, the opinions that you’ve given today about memory are based in significant part on your research and experiments, right?¶

15 16 A. Not only my work, the work of many other scientists who work in this field.¶

17 18 Q. They are based in part on your — based in significant part on your research and experiments, right?¶

19 20 A. Well, many of the experiments on — particularly on misinformation are my experiments, yes.¶

21 Q. You’ve conducted many experiments over the years, right?¶

23 Q. I want to talk about some of those experiments now.¶

24 One of your experiments involves Bugs Bunny, right?¶

25 A. A bunny.¶

Q. You’re not licensed as a psychologist, right?¶

A. No, we don’t get licensed as experimental psychologists.¶

4 Q. And in that experiment, you tried to get people to think that they met Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, right?¶

6 7 Q. That experiment involved an advertisement for Disneyland that includes a picture of Bugs Bunny, right?¶

8 A. That was involved in that study, yes.¶

9 10 Q. And that would be impossible because Bugs Bunny is Warner Brothers, right?¶

11 A. That’s exactly why we did the study, yes.¶

12 13 Q. Okay. So that experiment involved the use of fake photographs, right?¶

14 A. Fake drawings, yes.¶

15 16 Q. And then you ask people in this experiment whether they had met Bugs Bunny at Disney, right?¶

17 A. On a childhood trip to Disney, yes.¶

18 19 Q. And in that experiment, about 16 percent of people went along with the suggestion, right?¶

20 21 22 A. Well, I don’t — it’s been a while since I’ve looked at the actual data. I don’t remember the exact number, but some percentage claim that they met Bugs Bunny at a Disney resort.¶

23 24 Q. We can pull up that study if that would be helpful for you to see the percentage. It’s Government Exhibit 1511.¶

25 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I’m going to object. And I¶

Q. Bugs Bunny?¶

A. Bugs Bunny, yes.¶

You can come up. Thank you.¶

will give my reasons at sidebar, if you like.¶

THE COURT: Let me look at 1511.¶

Can we get the background erased,¶

4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the objection is that this is far afield from her expert testimony. We’re picking one study out of hundreds and then going into it.¶

5 6 7 8 9 10 When I attempted to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on a study that she relied on, I was precluded from doing that and I think the objection was similar. And the Court sustained the objection saying, you know, we’re not going to go into all of the studies that she may or may not have relied on in support of her testimony.¶

11 12 13 14 This is similar to that. Dr. Loftus is testifying about a broad range of studies; and to single one out is, you know, overly prejudicial, not very helpful to the jury, doesn’t go to any of the opinions that she’s offered in this case.¶

15 16 THE COURT: I’m sorry, can you remind me of the parallel objection.¶

17 18 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. There was a study that was given to the prosecution by Dr. Rocchio on hindsight bias and - basically hindsight bias and what went into hindsight bias.¶

20 21 22 THE COURT: You were trying to introduce affirmative evidence through that study and not using it to impeach her reliance on it; correct?¶

23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree. I was trying to impeach her and using some of the words from that study to impeach her on what her opinions were during trial. That was the purpose¶

(At sidebar)¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

of doing it. And I think this is analogous to that, if not exactly the same.¶

MS. : Your Honor, this witness has testified about her extensive findings on memory that are based on multiple experiments. This is one of the experiments, so they asked her about certain experiments on direct examination. This is one of the studies that she herself conducted, and so I don’t see how this is a parallel question. It’s presented for the Court. This is part of the experiments that she used and that she conducted that forms the basis of her opinions.¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: I think part of the analysis — I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off, if you were finished.¶

MS. : It’s quite distinct from Dr. Rocchio, who wasn’t testifying. That was something, as your Honor pointed out, that the defense is trying to introduce for cross-examination, and it wasn’t an article that she had written. It’s quite distinct.¶

THE COURT: Overruled.¶

Q. I’m going to direct you on Government Exhibit 1511 to page 17.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MS. : If we can pull that up.¶

A. How do you pull it up?¶

MS. : Is that not on the witness’s screen?¶

A.¶

■. Okay. Great. The lines are now removed. Thank you very much.¶

Q. And I want to just direct your attention to the first paragraph under “Discussion.” You see it says: For example, 16 percent of people claim that they shook hands with Bugs after receiving the false Bugs ad. Do you see that?¶

A. Yes.¶

MS. : Okay. We can pull that down.¶

Q. So in this experiment, about 16 percent of people went along with the suggestion that they had met Bugs Bunny at Disney, right?¶

A. You’ll have to put that back up because¶

MS. : We can pull that back up.¶

THE COURT: Is it in her binder as well, the full study, Ms. Is it in the binder?¶

MS. : Yes.¶

Your Honor, I’m happy to move on from this.¶

4 5 6 7 THE COURT: You said you were going to move on. But I just want to direct her. She wants to look at the study to refresh, if you’re going to ask her questions about it, if it’s in the binder.¶

8 9 MS. : Your Honor, I meant, sorry, I was going to move on from the percentage.¶

10 THE COURT: okay. Let me look at the question.¶

11 12 All right. Go ahead. You -•¶

13 14 Q. The thing that the subjects got wrong was that they saw Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, right?¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 A. The study is 20 years old. But according to what you just showed me, 16 percent claim that they shook his hand. Others claim they touched his tail or touched his ear or heard him say What’s up, Doc? And Bugs Bunny would not be at a Disney resort because it’s a Warner Brothers character. And that was the whole point of this study.¶

21 Q. All right. I’m going to turn to a different experiment.¶

22 23 You testified on direct about an experiment involving a simulated car accident, right?¶

25 Q. And the misinformation was that the car accident involved a¶

Q. The thing that the subjects got wrong was that they saw Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, right?¶

4 remembered the simulated accident, right?¶

5 A. Presumably, yes.¶

6 7 8 Q. Okay. In that experiment, did any of the experiment subjects face the possibility of getting charged with a crime if they lied to you?¶

9 A. No.¶

10 11 Q. Now, in that experiment, you changed one fact, that’s the yield sign stop sign, right?¶

12 A. Or vice-versa.¶

13 14 Q. You’ve done other experiments where you’ve changed more than one fact, right?¶

16 Q. There is, I think, a science museum experiment?¶

18 Q. And in that study you tried to change two facts, right?¶

19 A. Correct.¶

20 21 Q. People went to a museum and they watched a short video, right?¶

23 24 Q. And in that video, a blue car rushed towards a person for eight seconds, right?¶

25 A. I don’t — the car was blue, the offending car, yes.¶

yield sign, not a stop sign, right?¶

A. It was the critical item, yes.¶

Q. Okay. But to be clear, the research subjects still¶

4 A. Correct.¶

5 6 Q. And during that questioning, certain details were distorted, right?¶

7 8 A. I believe that we had deliberately tried to change the color of the car in their memory.¶

9 10 Q. The color of the car was changed in the questions from blue to right?¶

11 A. Something like that, yes.¶

12 13 Q. And there was a color of a jacket that was changed in questions from, I believe, blue to black, right?¶

14 A. Well, I mostly remember the blue car, so —¶

15 16 Q. And in that study, some of the research subjects were fooled by one changed fact about the color of the car, right?¶

18 19 Q. But the research subjects were not fooled by the attempt to change the second fact, right?¶

20 A. I believe that’s what happened in that study, yes.¶

21 22 Q. Okay. You’ve also conducted an experiment about planting a false memory of someone being lost in a mall, right?¶

23 A. That’s a study that we did in the mid ’90s, yes.¶

24 Q. And that study involved about 24 participants, right?¶

Q. Okay. And then folks, after watching the video, they walked through the museum and then they are asked some questions, right?¶

Q. And the participants were between the ages of 18 to 53, right?¶

4 Q. And you tried to implant a false memory, right?¶

5 6 7 8 A. We tried to suggest to them that they, as a child, have been lost in a shopping mall for an extended period of time and then rescued by an elderly person and reunited with their family.¶

9 10 Q. So research subjects were — they were shown one-paragraph stories describing four events, right?¶

11 12 A. Well, again, that was a 1995 paper; but the fine details of the method, that sounds close, yes, but¶

13 14 Q. So but there were three true stories and one false one, right?¶

16 17 Q. Okay. And you told the subjects that you talked to their parents, right?¶

18 A. Yeah, or an older sibling.¶

19 Q. So a parent or older sibling, right?¶

21 22 Q. And you found out from the parents experiences that had happened to the subjects when they were children, right?¶

23 A. Yes, some true experiences.¶

24 Q. Right. For the three true ones, right?¶

Q. Okay. And then you presented the subjects with the three true memories that their parents had told you about, right?¶

4 5 6 Q. And then you presented the subjects with the false memory that the subject was lost in the mall when the subject was five or six years old, right?¶

7 A. With more specifics, yes, but that’s basically correct.¶

8 9 10 Q. And the subject was told that the false memory of being lost in the mall was something that their family members said had happened, right?¶

11 A. That was strongly suggested in the study, yes.¶

12 13 Q. And sometime later, you conducted an interview of the 24 participants in that study, right?¶

14 A. Yeah, we tested them, I guess, a few times.¶

15 16 Q. And 25 percent — about 25 percent remembered some of the false event, which means 75 percent did not, right?¶

17 A. Correct.¶

18 19 20 21 Q. Okay. Isn’t it true that studies have shown that in the extreme case where participants are given blatantly contradictory suggestions, they are sometimes not susceptible to suggestion or misinformation at all?¶

22 23 A. We did a study where we tried to give a blatantly false suggestion and people resisted it, yes.¶

24 25 Q. You, yourself, you published a paper called Reactions to Blatantly Contradictory Information, right?¶

4 Q. In other words, if something contradicts the true events so blatantly, the memory is not as susceptible to suggestion, right?¶

5 6 7 8 A. In that particular study, yes, that was — that was a wallet-snatching crime. And we were not able to mislead people about the color of the wallet, which was a very obvious, obvious, strong detail.¶

9 10 11 Q. You’re familiar with a study conducted by Kathy Pezdek in which Pezdek presented 20 subjects with one true memory and two false memories, right?¶

12 A. Well, I know about that study, yes.¶

13 14 Q. And one of the false memories was being lost in the mall, right?¶

16 17 Q. And the other false memory was receiving something called a rectal enema, right?¶

19 20 21 Q. And I’m not going to ask you to describe a rectal enema, but it’s fair to say that that’s an intrusive bodily procedure, right?¶

23 24 Q. Three of the 20 subjects remembered having been lost in the mall, right?¶

25 A. Something like that in her study, yes.¶

Q. And none of the 20 subjects remembered the rectal enema, right?¶

4 5 A. None of the 20 remembered the scenario that they were presented with involving a rectal enema. But they weren’t told they even saw it.¶

6 7 8 Q. Pezdek tried to instill a false memory of subjects of having a rectal enema, but she did not succeed in doing that, right?¶

9 A. She did not; correct.¶

10 11 Q. You testified on direct examination about post-event contamination, right?¶

13 14 Q. Young children are more susceptible to post-event contamination than adults, right?¶

15 A. Typically, very young children, yes.¶

16 17 Q. And we’re talking about children under the age of six, right?¶

19 Q. Not all memory is retained equally, right?¶

20 A. Right.¶

21 Q. Not all memory is retrieved equally, right?¶

22 A. Correct.¶

23 24 Q. If there was an event like the birth of your first child, it would be very rare to forget that over time, right?¶

25 A. I would think that would be hard to forget.¶

4 5 6 A. There are studies that show typically people can remember a core event and some core details, support for that proposition, yes.¶

7 8 Q. People tend to remember the core or essence of trauma events, right?¶

9 A. They can, yes.¶

10 11 Q. People may forget some of the peripheral details of a trauma event, right?¶

12 A. That can happen, yes.¶

13 14 Q. But the core memories of a trauma event remain stronger, right?¶

15 A. I probably agree with that.¶

16 17 18 Q. And people who are involved in the trauma event tend to remember the core or gist of the event better than those who are nonparticipants, right?¶

19 20 21 A. There are at least one or two studies that show that if you participate, your memory is somewhat better than if you’re just observing.¶

22 23 Q. And if a person is involved in repetitive traumatic experiences, they are more likely to remember it, right?¶

24 25 A. Generally, the more times something happens to you, the better your memory; or the more times you’re exposed to¶

Q. I want to talk about memories of trauma.¶

The core memory of trauma is stronger than other types of memory, right?¶

4 5 6 7 Q. Now, we’ve talked today about some of the experiments you have done. And you talked about experiments you’ve done that involved videos of car crashes, people being lost in the malls, things like that, right?¶

8 A. Among other things, yes.¶

9 10 Q. Now, obviously you’ve never done a study where you arranged for teenage girls to be sexually abused, right?¶

12 13 Q. You’ve never done a study of how well those girls remember that sexual abuse years later, right?¶

14 15 A. Well, I’ve done studies where we interview people who were sexually abused about what they remember.¶

16 17 Q. The question I’m asking you is have you conducted a study where you arranged for girls to be sexually abused?¶

18 A. No, absolutely not.¶

19 20 Q. You haven’t conducted a study where you saw girls being sexually abused, right?¶

21 A. Correct.¶

22 23 Q. You’ve never conducted a study in which you attempted to implant a false memory of childhood sexual abuse?¶

24 A. We have not.¶

25 I have one moment, your Honor?¶

something, the better your memory.¶

Q. That’s a fundamental principle of human memory, right?¶

A. Yes, frequency, yes.¶

4 THE COURT: All right.¶

5 MS. STERNHEIM: Briefly.¶

6 THE COURT: Yes.¶

7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION¶

8 BY MS. STERNHEIM:¶

9 10 Q. Professor Loftus, you’ve been conducting experimental psychology research for over 50 years; correct?¶

12 13 Q. You have received numerous awards for lifetime achievement for the work that you have done?¶

14 MS. : Objection.¶

15 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

16 17 Q. You were asked a number of questions about studies here; correct?¶

19 20 Q. Some that you actually conducted and some that were conducted by others; correct?¶

22 23 Q. You were asked questions about studies that would involve sexual abuse; correct?¶

25 Q. And earlier I had asked you whether there were certain¶

MS. : Nothing further, your Honor.¶

4 THE COURT: Overruled.¶

5 A. Yes, you did.¶

6 Q. And please explain to the jury why that is.¶

7 MS. : Objection.¶

8 Asked and answered, your Honor.¶

9 THE COURT: I’ll allow it.¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A. The human subjects review committees at universities and colleges are in place to try to protect human beings from being involved in experiments that might be harmful to them. And so that is why these committees will review your proposal for a piece of research and either allow you to go forward with your proposal or not allow you to go forward or suggest modifications that would allow you to go forward.¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 But their interest is in making sure — or trying to ensure that you’re not doing something to harm the research that might harm the research participants. That’s why we would, as I thought I indicated earlier in my testimony, would not be probably, you know, allowed to deliberately plant memories of sexual abuse.¶

23 24 25 Q. On cross-examination, the government had suggested that you are a profiteer when you testify for the defense. Do you remember that?¶

restrictions placed upon the type of experiments that a psychologist is allowed to perform?¶

4 5 Q. They took issue with the fact that you have testified in criminal cases predominantly for the defense?¶

6 MS. : Objection.¶

7 THE COURT: Grounds.¶

8 MS. : Mischaracterization, your Honor.¶

9 THE COURT: Overruled.¶

10 11 Q. You have worked as a consultant for the federal government, have you not?¶

13 Q. For the Secret Service; correct?¶

15 Q. For the Department of Justice; correct?¶

17 Q. For the FBI; correct?¶

19 Q. For the Internal Revenue Service; correct?¶

21 22 Q. And those entities were aware that you have provided testimony for defendants in criminal matters; correct?¶

23 MS. : Objection.¶

24 THE COURT: Grounds.¶

25 MS. : Foundation.¶

A. Yes, I do.¶

THE COURT: I’m going to sustain.¶

4 Q. The testimony that you gave here today, would it have been any different if you had been called to the stand by the government?¶

5 6 7 A. I don’t think — I don’t see how it would have been any different. I think in the case where I did testify for the prosecution, it was similar testimony.¶

8 9 Q. And if the prosecution had called you, you would have been available to be a witness for them, wouldn’t you?¶

10 A. I might have been.¶

11 MS. STERNHEIM: No further questions. Thank you.¶

12 THE COURT: Ms.¶

13 14 MS. : No, nothing further from the government. Thank you, your Honor.¶

15 THE COURT: Thank you. All right.¶

16 Professor Loftus, you may step down. You are excused.¶

17 (Witness excused)¶

18 THE COURT: Defense may call their next witness.¶

19 MS. STERNHEIM: I’m just going to move please.¶

20 THE COURT: Sure.¶

21 Mr. Everdell?¶

22 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.¶

23 The defense calls Michael Aznaran.¶

24 THE COURT: Okay.¶

25 He may come forward.¶

4 THE COURT: You may inquire, Mr. Everdell.¶

5 6 7 8 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I believe the government may have an objection to the exhibit we plan to admit through this witness, so we may need to be heard at sidebar before we begin the examination.¶

9 10 THE COURT: Can we start and then we can take it at the break?¶

11 12 MR. EVERDELL: There’s some questioning before we get to the exhibit, your Honor, so yes.¶

13 THE COURT: Okay.¶

14 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you.¶

15 THE COURT: Is that okay, Ms.¶

16 MS. : Yes. Thank you, your Honor.¶

17 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.¶

18 You may inquire.¶

19 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.¶

20 DIRECT EXAMINATION¶

21 BY MR. EVERDELL:¶

22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Aznaran.¶

23 A. Good afternoon.¶

24 Q. How old are you, sir?¶

25 A. Thirty-seven.¶

MICHAEL WILLIAM AZNARAN,¶

4 Q. What is Customs and Border Protection?¶

5 6 7 A. It’s a federal law enforcement agency that mainly works out of the land border seaports and airports around the United States.¶

8 Q. And generally, what functions do they serve at the borders?¶

9 10 A. Basically, checking incoming either passengers or land border travelers entering the United States.¶

11 12 Q. Did Customs and Border Protection used to be known as something else in the past?¶

13 A. It did, yes.¶

14 Q. What was that?¶

15 16 17 A. It’s actually made up of two legacy agencies. One was the INS, Immigration and Naturalization Service; the other one was USCS, U.S. Customs service.¶

18 19 Q. Okay. And those are both now combined in CBP or Customs and Border Protection?¶

21 22 Q. Okay. How long have you worked at Customs and Border Protection?¶

23 A. Since July of 2008.¶

24 25 Q. And can you just describe the different positions you’ve held at CBP and your duties and responsibilities in those¶

A. I currently work for U.S. Customs and Border Protection here in Manhattan at the New York/New Jersey HIDTA task force. positions.¶

4 5 A. Sure. July of 2008, I entered the service. I went to the academy for about four months. When I got back from the academy, I was assigned to John F. Kennedy International Airport, passenger operations.¶

6 Q. Can you explain what passenger operations is?¶

7 8 9 10 A. Yes. It’s considered what we call the core process. So any travelers that are coming into the United States at JFK, when they get off the plane from a foreign country, they have to go down to what’s called an FIS, a federal inspection site.¶

11 12 13 14 At that site, we have officers, uniformed officers, in booths that basically check the — check each and every traveler, swipe their passports, and either admit them or deny them entry into the United States.¶

15 16 17 Q. So are those the folks that are in the booths or the kiosks you show your passport to when you’re traveling internationally when you arrive?¶

19 Q. Okay. So how long did you do that job for?¶

20 A. I did that for approximately three and a half years.¶

21 Q. Okay. And did you say which airport you were in?¶

22 A. JFK, John F. Kennedy.¶

23 Q. What did you do after that?¶

24 25 A. At that point I was selected to go up to what’s — what used to be called PAU, passenger analysis unit. And more¶

4 Q. Can you explain for the jury what the passenger analysis unit is and what the RCLG is?¶

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A. Sure. PAU used to be mainly an intel center made up of several different functions such as narcotics, terrorism, and RCLG. RCLG, we were more or less liaisons that would communicate with airline and airport employees in foreign countries. And we would make recommendations to those airline employees if we basically found or noticed a particular passenger that would be on one of their flights coming into the United States that might have some kind of an issue being admitted into the United States.¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 We would then, if we did find a passenger such as this, we would recommend to that airline to do what we call an offload. So it’s just a recommendation to that airline saying, If this passenger does travel on your airline into the United States, there is either a high probability or a certainty that they will not be admitted, be able to be admitted into the United States. We recommend they go to the closest embassy and get their issue figured out there.¶

22 Q. How long did you do that work for at CBP?¶

23 A. Roughly four and a half years.¶

24 Q. And did you have a position after that?¶

25 A. I did. In 2015, I was promoted to first line supervisor,¶

specifically, I was assigned to what’s called RCLG, regional carrier liaison group.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

at which point I was then placed back into passenger operations.¶

Q. And that’s what we discussed before?¶

Q. This time you were a supervisor?¶

Q. I see.¶

And what airport were you working there?¶

A. Same airport, John F. Kennedy International.¶

Q. And is that your current position?¶

A. It is not.¶

Q. What position did you hold after that?¶

A. So in April of 2018, still as a supervisor, I was selected to be a task force officer with the New York/New Jersey HIDTA task force.¶

Q. What’s HIDTA?¶

A. HIDTA is H-I-D-T-A, high intensity drug trafficking area.¶

Q. What does that mean? What did you do for HIDTA? What’s the mission?¶

A. So I’m still currently assigned to HIDTA.¶

My function is basically to act as a liaison between my agency, Customs and Border Protection, and the roughly 30 to 35 other law enforcement agencies that also have representatives at HIDTA.¶

Q. And how long have you held that post?¶

4 5 6 Q. All right. Mr. Aznaran, does Customs and Border Protection keep records on people that are entering or exiting the United States?¶

8 Q. And where is that information stored?¶

9 10 A. It’s stored in the system that we call TECS, T-E-C-S, Treasury Enforcement Communication System.¶

11 Q. Okay. And are you familiar with the TECS system?¶

13 Q. Can you just describe what the TECS system is.¶

14 15 16 17 18 A. It’s a — it’s a law enforcement system which acts as a platform. It collects data from several other systems and kind of compiles it into one system that CBP — we own and control TECS. So we are able to utilize all that information to see who’s coming into or possibly departing the United States.¶

19 20 21 We also have access to NCIC, National Crime Intelligence Center. So we can see if people have warrants for their arrest, missing persons, things of that nature.¶

22 23 Q. So you mentioned that TECS pulls information from lots of different sources; is that right?¶

25 Q. What sorts of information does the TECS system store from¶

A. Since April of 2018, so almost four years now.¶

Q. And that’s your current position?¶

4 5 6 A. You have — you have travel — I’m sorry, international travel records, you have passengers’ travel documents, such as passports and visas. We are able to do queries of addresses, vehicles, license plates. NCIC, as I mentioned, already warrants missing persons, stolen vehicles.¶

7 8 Q. And does the information you just mentioned include also border-crossing information?¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Now, with respect to border-crossing information, what kinds of information are stored in the TECS system? A. As far as border crossing? Q. Yes, specifically border crossing. airport they are traveling, the site code. (Continued on next page)¶

25¶

these sources?¶

A. So within the aviation and vessel or, more commonly known as cruise line information, you would normally have somebody’s full name, their passport number that they are using to travel, what location they are traveling from, what location they are traveling to, if they are traveling into an airport, which¶

4 5 6 7 A. That, it could mean either any international traveler coming into the United States at any international airport, seaport, or land border along the Mexican or northern border of Canada.¶

8 9 10 Q. And the information you just listed is stored in the TECS system for those passengers that are entering through ports of entry; is that right?¶

12 13 Q. How far back do the border crossing records go in the TECS system?¶

14 15 16 A. It’s hard to say. In my experience, I have not seen any border crossings any earlier than roughly the early ’90s, mid ’90s.¶

17 18 Q. And how does the border crossing information that is stored in the TECS system get input into that database?¶

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. So, there is another system, it’s called APIS, Advanced Passenger Information System, and essentially what happens is international airlines or any airline that has international flights coming into or departing the United States, they’re required to submit their manifest to us. The manifest gets loaded into APIS, which is then linked to text, and that’s how we’re able to see that information.¶

Q. And just to be clear, when I refer to border crossing, what does that mean to you?¶

4 5 6 7 A. Generally, the name of the passenger, their date of birth, the document that they’re using, whether it’s a passport or a card, the flight information, the carrier code, the flight number, where they’re traveling from and where they’re traveling to.¶

8 9 10 11 Q. Is there any information in the TECS system about a border crossing that gets supplied by those immigration officials we talked about at the primary immigration line as opposed to the airlines?¶

12 A. No.¶

13 14 Q. So the people who check you in through the kiosks, is there any information that gets input from there?¶

15 16 17 A. Not by the officers themselves. Once a passenger is processed, there are certain that will be automatically updated.¶

18 19 Q. But those get updated once they go through the immigration line; right?¶

21 Q. That doesn’t come from the airlines?¶

22 A. No.¶

23 24 25 Q. For the information that comes from the airlines, the information you mentioned, how soon after the flight takes off does that information get input into the TECS system?¶

Q. What sort of information is contained in the manifest from the airlines?¶

A. It’s supposed to be what’s called the securing of flight doors. So once the door to the aircraft is shut, the information or the manifest is supposed to be sent to APIS.¶

4 5 6 Q. So the manifest information is supposed to reflect the people who are on board at the time the doors are shut at the gate?¶

8 Q. Before wheels up, I guess?¶

10 11 12 Q. All right. And how soon after the traveler passes through the immigration line at the kiosk is that information populated into the TECS system?¶

13 A. I’m sorry. Could you repeat the question.¶

14 15 16 Q. You mentioned that certain information gets populated after the traveler goes through the immigration line at, say, the airport they’re coming into; right?¶

18 19 20 Q. How soon after the passenger travels through that immigration line does that information hit the system, hit the TECS system?¶

21 A. It should be at that same time.¶

22 23 24 Q. And is it the regular practice of customs and border protection to keep this type of border crossing information in its records in the TECS system?¶

4 5 6 7 A. You could search by name, last name, first name. You could search by a combination of last name, first name, and date of birth. You could search by a passport number. You could search by a visa number.¶

8 9 Q. And those names you mentioned, those are the names of the travelers; right?¶

11 Q. So can you search by a particular traveler?¶

13 Q. Can you limit the search to a particular timeframe?¶

15 16 17 Q. Now, if you search the TECS system for the border crossing records for a particular traveler, what does the database generate?¶

18 19 A. It would generate basically any border crossings or encounters for that particular person within that timeframe.¶

20 21 It would basically be like rows of information for each encounter or border crossing.¶

22 23 Q. And it would be for whatever time period you put in for; right?¶

25 Q. And then that report contains the information that you had¶

Q. Is the text database searchable?¶

Q. And what can you search with?¶

4 Q. Are those reports generated in the normal course of CBP’s regularly conducted activity?¶

6 7 8 Q. Mr. Aznaran, did there come a time when you were asked to search the TECS system for certain border crossing records related to this case?¶

10 Q. And were you asked to search for certain travelers?¶

12 Q. How many travelers were you asked to search for?¶

13 A. Three.¶

14 15 Q. And do you know the names of those travelers without telling me the name?¶

16 A. I do.¶

17 18 Q. So I want to show you first what is admitted under seal as Government Exhibit 12.¶

19 20 21 MR. EVERDELL: With the Court’s permission, I’ll show it just to the Court and the deputy and the witness. GX12, please, under seal.¶

22 Q. Mr. Aznaran, do you see that on your screen, that document?¶

24 25 Q. That’s a document that’s already in evidence under seal as Government Exhibit 12. Do you see the name on that document?¶

been discussing?¶

4 Q. I’m going to refer to that person as Jane and you should, as well. All right?¶

6 7 Q. Was Jane one of the people whose border crossing records you were asked to search for?¶

9 MR. EVERDELL: We can remove that.¶

10 11 12 13 Now I want to bring up what’s also in evidence already under seal as Defendant’s Exhibit LV4. With the Court’s permission, just show it to the Court, the deputy, and the witness.¶

15 Q. Mr. Aznaran, do you see that document?¶

17 18 Q. You’re looking at a document already in evidence under seal as LV4. Do you see the name on that document? Yes or no.¶

20 21 Q. I’m going to refer to that person as , and you should, as well. All right?¶

23 24 Q. Was one of the people whose border crossing records you were asked to search for?¶

Just a yes or no.¶

MR. EVERDELL: All right. We can bring that down.¶

4 5 Q. Was one of the people whose border crossing records you were asked to search for?¶

7 8 Q. So were Jane, , and the records you were asked to search for in the TECS system?¶

10 11 Q. Were you asked to search for the records in a particular date range?¶

13 Q. What was that date range?¶

14 A. It was from January 1st, 1994, to December 31st, 2010.¶

15 Q. Did you perform those searches?¶

17 Q. And when did you conduct that search?¶

18 A. A few days ago.¶

19 20 Q. Did the TECS system generate the three reports from those searches?¶

22 23 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, at this time, I think we may need to have our sidebar.¶

24 25 THE COURT: I’ll give the jurors their mid afternoon break. We’ll resume in about 15 minutes. Thank you.¶

Q. Are you also familiar with the name,¶

4 5 6 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the exhibit is marked for identification as MA1, and I’ll hand up a paper copy to the Court, and I believe the government has a copy, but I have another one for them, as well.¶

7 THE COURT: Okay. I’ll hear the objection.¶

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MS. : Thank you, your Honor. Just briefly, the question posed to the defense is what is the relevance of these records, and in particular, we’re talking about victim travel records that go over 15 years of victim travel records that extend well beyond the period charged in the indictment. And so, we would ask for a proffer of relevance for the admissibility of such extensive travel information, private information of the victims.¶

16 17 THE COURT: So no objection within the charged timeframe?¶

18 MS. : No objection.¶

19 20 21 22 23 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, for example, these records go up to 2010, which was the cutoff point for the request when we issued the subpoena, we, in fact, negotiated with the government over how broad the subpoena would be and we agreed that it would go to 2010.¶

24 25 Now, as to the relevance and that’s why the records go that far.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Everdell.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

As to the relevance, I mean, for example, we see Jane’s travel records going all the way up to 2010. Jane testified in this case already that she continued to travel after she had left New York and continued to travel, and I think this is, if it’s already in the record, that she continued to travel. I don’t think this is in any way prejudicial —¶

THE COURT: I just would like to know what the relevance is.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, she also testified — Jane, I’m referring to — that she came from a family that did not have much means when she first — when she was younger. She testified extensively about the fact that she didn’t have much money, and these records show extensive foreign travel, going on well into the 2010s. So it tends to counter that.¶

Same thing with She said she came from a family with a single mother, didn’t have much money, and these travel records show travel to Mexico and places like that.¶

For , there was a discussion about she traveled after the incidents that she talked about in the United Kingdom and she was open-ended about how often she traveled and how long she traveled. And there was also testimony that she was still in contact with Jeffrey Epstein well into the 2000s. I think some of the emails are in the 2010s, 2015. So these¶

travel records show her whereabouts and show her traveling around the same time when she’s still in contact with Jeffrey Epstein.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

THE COURT: What’s the relevance of that?¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I don’t plan to make much of an argument about those records that are happening after the charged time period¶

THE COURT: You haven’t asserted any relevance with respect to after the — where is the government with respect to the time cutoff request?¶

MS. : Your Honor, our proposal would be that it would be redacting anything that postdates the charged conspiracy.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, there is probably a practical solution that we could come to with this, because I don’t think that we — you want to give me a moment, your Honor. I’ll just confer with my colleagues.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, one other point about in particular, I believe her testimony was that she was on public assistance at some point in her life that correspond to when she’s flying all over the world. So I think that those records —¶

THE COURT: Is that during the time of the charged conspiracy?¶

MR. EVERDELL: I don’t know if she put a timeframe on exactly when that was. I’m told it was not — she testified it was not during the period of the charged conspiracy when she was on public assistance, but she did testify to it and that’s now on the record, and if these records tend to counter that point, that she had made that point to the jury, I think we could use these records to show that.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

With the other travelers, your Honor, I think we can come to a practical solution.¶

THE COURT: See if you can come to a solution and you can tell me where we are. We’ll break for 10 minutes.¶

(Recess)¶

THE COURT: All right. Where are we?¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we conferred with the government. We reached agreement as to redactions and other omissions from this exhibit and we’re just now printing new copies of the revised exhibit. We have about half of those copies. It’s coming up right now and we’ll have the other half shortly in just a couple minutes.¶

MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I have your copy I’ll hand up, and one to the government, and we’ll put one, with the Court’s permission, facedown in the witness box.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. acceptable?¶

4 5 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, may I raise one issue? Your Honor gave us a 5 o’clock extension of filing of a brief today. Can I ask for one hour so that we could — until 6:00 p.m. for that filing so we can confer with our office?¶

6 THE COURT: Okay.¶

7 MS. MENNINGER: Thank you.¶

8 9 THE COURT: I don’t even know what it is. I’ll still be here at 6:00. That will be fine.¶

10 11 12 13 14 MS. : Your Honor, just one thing to alert the Court. I believe the parties have reached, in principle, agreement on a stipulation regarding Mr. Glassman. So that will obviate the need to deal with the service issue for his live testimony.¶

15 THE COURT: Sounds like a good idea.¶

16 MR. PAGLIUCA: It could have been fun, your Honor.¶

17 18 THE COURT: If only someone had thought of that sooner.¶

19 20 21 The witness is coming back and we can bring in the jury. Thank you for working out agreement on the timeframe issue.¶

22 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.¶

23 (Witness present)¶

24 25 THE COURT: You may take a seat and you can remove your mask. Just waiting for the jury.¶

THE COURT: Okay. We can bring in the witness.¶

4 THE COURT: Thank you for your patience, members of the jury. We will continue with the direct examination of Mr. Aznaran.¶

5 Mr. Aznaran, I remind you are you under oath.¶

6 Mr. Everdell you may inquire.¶

7 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.¶

8 BY MR. EVERDELL:¶

9 Q. Welcome back, Mr. Aznaran.¶

10 A. Thank you.¶

11 12 Q. If you recall when we left off, I was asking you about some reports that you ran in the TECS system; is that right?¶

14 15 Q. Can you remind us how many different travelers’ reports did you run in the TECS system?¶

16 A. Three.¶

17 18 Q. I believe you said those were for Jane, and ; is that right?¶

20 21 MR. EVERDELL: With the Court’s permission I want to show him what’s been marked for identification as MA1.¶

22 23 24 25 Q. Mr. Aznaran, there is a document on the floor next to you, you can pick that up, and a copy has been provided to the government and the Court. Can you look at that document marked as MA1 for identification.¶

4 Q. What is MA1?¶

5 THE COURT: Just without saying any of the names.¶

6 Q. Without saying the names of the travelers, please.¶

7 A. It is a person encounter list from TECS.¶

8 9 Q. Are these the person encounter list from the three travelers you were asked to look at?¶

11 Q. And how do you recognize them?¶

12 A. I ran them on December 14th of 2021.¶

13 14 15 Q. And are they fair and accurate copies of the three TECS reports that you searched for and pulled off the system for the border crossing records of Jane, , and 9¶

17 18 19 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, defense offers MA1 under temporary seal to allow for redactions to protect privacy of witnesses in this case.¶

20 MS. : No objection.¶

21 22 23 THE COURT: All right. MA1 is admitted under seal to redact the identifying information of witnesses who I have allowed to testify under pseudonyms. Thank you.¶

24 (Defendant’s Exhibits MA1 received in evidence)¶

25 MR. EVERDELL: With the Court’s permission, I’ll hand¶

A. Okay. Yes.¶

Q. Do you recognize what MA1 is?¶

5 6 Q. First I’d like you to walk us through the various columns that are in this report.¶

7 8 But just for clarity sake, do domestic flights appear on these reports or just international flights?¶

9 A. Just international.¶

10 11 Q. And if you could explain please then the different columns as you read across the first page, what those mean.¶

12 A. The first column is last name, last name of the passenger.¶

13 Q. Again, please don’t read the name.¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Last name of the passenger or the person that’s been queried. The next column is the first name, which is the first name of the person. DOB is for date of birth. DOC type is the document type that’s on record, such as, in this case, the first page, the letter P is for passport. Document number is the number of the documents, on this case, the passport number. Date and time, eastern. So the date is the date of the border crossing. The time is the time that they were processed when they came through port of entry. Carrier code is two letters, that’s the airline code. So towards the bottom of the first page, AA is American Airlines, for an example. Carrier number is the number of the flight. I/O is indicating whether that¶

out copies to the jury.¶

Q. Mr. Aznaran, do you have the document in front of you?¶

4 5 Q. Could you explain that a little more. What do you mean by the federal inspection site?¶

6 7 8 9 10 11 A. So on this first page, you have the very first site at the top is Alpha 271. That is the specific terminal at whatever airport that that traveler was encountered. So if I flip to - it’s been redacted, but — for example, JFK airport has five international terminals. Terminal 4 is Alpha 471. Delta used to be Alpha 473.¶

12 13 14 Q. When we’re referring to the sites, are those the sites where the booths or the kiosks are where the immigration officials stamp your passports?¶

16 Q. Going to the right, what else do you see on these columns?¶

17 18 19 A. Then you have type. So that is the type of or more like the way that this information was obtained for each border crossing.¶

20 Q. And on that, if you look at the first entry —¶

21 THE COURT: Can’t quite hear you there, Mr. Everdell.¶

22 MR. EVERDELL: Sorry.¶

23 24 Q. On the column marked type, you see the first entry on the top, it says airline, not API?¶

25 A. Right.¶

particular record was for an inbound or an outbound travel. Site is the particular federal inspection site that the person was encountered at.¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 A. So the first one, airline, not API. An airline employee at some point manually entered that person’s information into their manifest system as opposed to APIS, which is Advanced Passenger Information System. That means that that airline submitted their manifest electronically to the APIS system and it was electronically and automatically uploaded into TECS.¶

10 Q. Okay. And what’s next?¶

11 A. The next column is status.¶

12 13 14 15 Q. What does that indicate. Actually, if I can have you look maybe at page 3 of the document, and you look at top of the page, the third entry down in the column status, it says the word passenger; is that right?¶

17 Q. So what does that indicate?¶

18 19 20 A. That indicates that that person was, at one point or another, added to that manifest of that airline for that particular flight.¶

21 Q. Going to the next column, updated status.¶

22 23 24 A. Updated status, I have, in all of my experience querying travel records, I have never seen anything in that column, and I honestly don’t know what it means or what it’s supposed to.¶

25 Q. Understood. What about the columns to the right of that?¶

Q. And the one below that says APIS?¶

Q. Can you explain the difference between the two.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. So ARRLOC, arrival location. That is the location, on the first page anyway, all the airports that the flight is going to be arriving or landing at. And to the right of that, DEPLOC is departure location. That is the airport where the flight is departing from.¶

Q. So let’s just take one example, the first example on page 1. That reflects a flight that Jane took from CDG to LAX; right?¶

Q. Do you know what CDG is?¶

A. Is Paris, Charles de Gaulle.¶

Q. And LAX is what?¶

A. Los Angeles International.¶

Q. And was that an incoming or outgoing flight?¶

A. That would be incoming. It departed from Paris and it landed at LAX, or Los Angeles.¶

Q. And you know the incoming from the I in the I/O category?¶

A. Yes, also Paris to Los Angeles. So that would be an incoming.¶

Q. And the date and time reflected there is 7/25/2004; right?¶

Q. So what does that date reflect?¶

A. That is the date that that passenger arrived into the United States and was processed.¶

Q. And the time?¶

4 5 6 7 Q. All right. So looking at the information in this chart, what of this information comes from the airlines and what of this information comes from the kiosks when they’re stamped into the country?¶

8 9 10 11 A. So the airline manifest is going to provide the last name, first name, the date of birth, document type, document number, the carrier code, the carrier number, inbound or outbound, the type, the arrival location, and the departure location.¶

12 Q. That all comes from the airline?¶

14 15 Q. And the rest of the information that’s not that is, I think, the date and time and the site; is that right?¶

16 17 18 19 20 21 A. The date and the time is when the manifest is first loaded. The date and the time will reflect the date of the flight and it will reflect the time of the flight, the time of arrival. Once the passenger is processed and that information is captured by their border crossing into TECS, that time is supposed to be updated to the time when they were processed.¶

22 Q. Processed at the immigration kiosk?¶

23 A. At the kiosk, correct.¶

24 Q. At the site location listed there?¶

A. The time is the updated time that the passenger was actually processed by a CBP officer in the passenger operations environment.¶

4 A. Because CBP, we don’t have a 100 percent outbound mandate, if you will.¶

5 6 7 Q. So you need to track incoming flights, people coming into the United States, but not necessarily people leaving the United States?¶

8 9 10 11 12 13 A. I wouldn’t say track. I would say when you come into the United States, you are required to be processed or admitted into the country. When you depart the country, there is no - for example, at JFK, there is no FIS, or federal inspection site with actual CBP officers that are processing you when you go to get on board your outbound flight.¶

14 15 16 Q. Understood. So I just want to take a look at the years that’s reflected in this report. If you look at the first page, which are the records of Jane’s travel; right?¶

18 Q. You see the earliest one there is January 6th, 1996; right?¶

20 Q. And the latest one there is July 25th, 2004; right?¶

21 A. Correct. Yes.¶

22 23 Q. Now, when you originally did this search, I think you said you searched all the way up to 2010; correct?¶

25 Q. And were there records going that late, do you recall?¶

Q. Okay. It looks like outbound flights, O’s in that column don’t have any site information typically. Why is that?¶

4 5 6 7 Q. And same thing with records. If you go to page 3 of that exhibit, you see on that page, there is some records of transits, earliest one there is February 29th of 2004; is that right?¶

8 A. My pages are¶

9 10 Q. I think you have to count manually, one, two, three, third page?¶

11 THE COURT: The page number is at the bottom right.¶

12 MR. EVERDELL: We can try that.¶

13 Q. That page is 5. Do you see that?¶

14 A. 5.¶

15 16 Q. For , the earliest one on that page is February 29th, 2004?¶

18 Q. And the latest one is April 3rd of 2006; right?¶

20 21 Q. Going to what’s page 7, there is some redacted entries, but those are also records; is that right?¶

22 A. I’m sorry?¶

23 Q. Those are also records on page 7?¶

25 Q. And the earliest one there is November 1st, 1997; correct?¶

A. I believe so, yes.¶

Q. So we’re just looking at a subset; right?¶

4 5 Q. And then finally, looking at on page 9, earliest record there is July 20th, 1997?¶

7 Q. And the latest one there is April 11th, 2006; right?¶

9 10 Q. Now, just to be clear, we talked about how late you searched, 2010, but how early did you search the records?¶

11 A. 1994. January 1st, 1994.¶

12 13 Q. And these are the first records that come up in that system, going back to ‘94?¶

15 16 17 Q. Let’s actually flip back to page 1, or I guess it’s page 2 of the exhibit, even though it’s the first page, you’ll see that’s a record for Jane. If you look down at the last one on¶

18¶

20 21 Q. That is the earliest border entry in the TECS system for Jane; correct?¶

23 24 Q. And you see the date of birth for Jane there. I don’t want you to say what it is, but do you see it?¶

Q. And that one is October 14th, 2006?¶

the page, the flight on January 6th, 1996 — do you see that?¶

4 A. 16.¶

5 6 Q. Actually. You want to do the math again? It’s date of birth —¶

7 MR. EVERDELL: I can say the year, can I not?¶

8 9 Q. Is it accurate to say that she would have been 15 when that flight took place?¶

11 12 Q. Then you look at the entry above that, that’s the flight on April 15th of 1996; right?¶

14 Q. And where did that flight arrive into?¶

15 A. Arrived into JFK.¶

16 Q. Where did it depart from?¶

17 A. MXP, which is Milan, Italy.¶

18 19 Q. Based on the date of birth, fair to say that Jane would have been 15 when that flight took place?¶

21 22 Q. And if you look at the flight above that, that’s the flight on June 21st, 1997; right?¶

24 25 Q. And, again, based on the date of birth for Jane, she would have been 16 when that flight took place; right?¶

Q. And if you can do the math, based on her date of birth, how old was she when this flight — when she made this border crossing back in the United States?¶

5 6 Q. You see the entry there is November 1st of 1997; is that right?¶

8 9 Q. Is that the earliest border entry in the TECS system for¶

11 Q. And you see her date of birth over to the left?¶

13 14 Q. Based on her date of birth, she would have been 20 years old when that flight took place; is that right?¶

16 17 Q. So does this report reflect that had any border crossings in 1994?¶

18 A. No.¶

19 Q. Does it reflect any border crossings for in 1995?¶

20 A. No.¶

21 22 Q. Does it reflect any border crossing records for in 1996?¶

23 A. No.¶

24 25 Q. First one was that one in November 1st, 1997, when she’s 20?¶

Q. Let’s take a look at a few of entries. So flip to page 7 of what’s marked on the bottom right as page 7.¶

5 6 Q. Why don’t you look at that last entry. That’s a flight on July 20th, 1997; correct?¶

8 Q. What city did this flight depart from?¶

9 A. DUS, which is DUsseldorf, Germany.¶

10 Q. Where did it arrive?¶

11 A. EWR, which is Newark Airport, New Jersey.¶

12 13 Q. Is this the earliest border entry in the TECS system for¶

15 16 Q. Does this report show any border crossings for in 1996?¶

17 A. No.¶

18 MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.¶

19 THE COURT: Okay.¶

20 MR. EVERDELL: No further questions, your Honor.¶

21 THE COURT: Ms.¶

22 MS. : Thank you, your Honor.¶

23 CROSS-EXAMINATION¶

24 BY MS.¶

25 Q. Good afternoon.¶

Q. Now I want you to flip to the last page. Those are the records for¶

5 6 Q. In your work as a CBP officer, do you have experience reviewing flight records from before September 11th, 2001?¶

8 9 Q. In your work as a CBP officer, do you have experience reviewing flight records from after 9/11?¶

11 12 13 Q. Based on your review of CBP records in your experience as a CBP officer, have you noticed a difference between CBP records from before 9/11 and after 9/11?¶

15 Q. What difference have you noticed?¶

16 17 18 19 20 A. Well, so if you if you look at the records, not necessarily these, but just in general, from my experience, what I have noticed is the farther back you go from the present time, the more likelihood that you are not going to get an on-board or not-on-board status for those records.¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. You’ve been testifying about CBP records of international flights from the 1990s and 2000s; right?¶

4 Q. As a CBP officer, is it important to your job to understand whether the CBP records you are reviewing are thorough and accurate?¶

6 7 Q. And in your day-to-day work as a CBP officer, do you rely on CBP records from before 9/11 to be complete?¶

8 9 A. We’d like to rely on or hope that the records are complete, but not necessarily all the time, no.¶

10 11 Q. And why is that the case that records before 9/11 are not necessarily complete?¶

12 13 14 15 A. Prior to 9/11, there was a little bit of a difference between how the records were submitted to CBP systems and the reliability of the airlines was not as good as it is now or after 9/11.¶

16 17 Q. And when did that start to change in terms of when did the records start to be more complete and thorough?¶

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. After 9/11, there were several acts put into place by the U.S. Government. The Department of Homeland Security was created. And basically, the airline industry was at one point mandated now to submit more complete records to CBP. I feel comfortable saying — as far as the status indicators, I feel comfortable saying roughly 2009, 2010, based on the records that I have ran in my experience, you would see more onboard or not onboard status.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Q. I want to talk about people traveling into the United States. In your work you refer to that as inbound travel, right?¶

Q. Based on your review of CBP records and your experience as a CBP officer, if someone was traveling into the United States before September 11th, 2001, would CBP records necessarily reflect that person’s travel into the United States?¶

A. Not necessarily.¶

Q. Can you explain why?¶

A. Once again, the recordkeeping and the way that the airlines used to basically operate, I’ll go back to APIS, Advance Passenger Information System. Prior to 9/11, it was voluntary for airlines to submit their manifests to APIS. After 9/11 and, more specifically, the most recent update that I’m aware of in, I believe it’s 2005, mandated airlines to submit full and complete manifests to CBP using the APIS system.¶

Q. I want to talk about when someone leaves the United States and travels internationally. In your work, you refer to that as outbound travel, right?¶

Q. Based on your review of CBP records and your experience as a CBP officer, if someone was traveling out of the United States before September 11th, would CBP records necessarily reflect that person’s travel out of the United States?¶

A. Not necessarily, no.¶

4 A. Once again, the airlines, it was a little bit of a different — different world before 9/11 happened.¶

5 6 Q. I want to turn to the records that defense counsel asked you about during direct examination.¶

7 Can you be certain that all outbound travel before 9/11 for the listed individuals is reflected in those records?¶

8¶

9¶

10 Q. And again, briefly, why not?¶

11 12 A. I can’t really say whether these records truly reflect exactly any passenger’s complete travel history.¶

13 14 Q. Can you be certain that all inbound travel before 9/11 for those individuals is reflected in these records?¶

15 A. No.¶

16 17 18 Q. So it is possible that the people named in these records, in fact, took international trips in the 1990s that are not reflected in these records, right?¶

19 A. Possible.¶

20 21 Q. I think defense counsel had pointed you to — if we could turn to page 9. We’re in Defendant’s Exhibit III-1.¶

22 THE COURT: I can’t quite hear you, Ms.¶

23 MS. : I’m sorry. Defense Exhibit III-1.¶

24 25 Q. We’re on page 9. And on the last line there is a flight on July 20th, 1997. Do you see that?¶

Q. And can you briefly explain why?¶

5 6 Q. But there is no flight reflected here of Annie’s trip to Dusseldorf, right?¶

7 A. No.¶

8 9 10 Q. So to be clear, these records are not necessarily an exhaustive list of every time Jane, , and Annie traveled internationally before September 11th, 2001, are they?¶

11 A. Not necessarily, no.¶

12 MS. : No further questions.¶

13 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.¶

14 MR. EVERDELL: Redirect.¶

15 THE COURT: Okay.¶

16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION¶

17 BY MR. EVERDELL:¶

18 19 Q. Mr. Aznaran, you were asked some questions on cross-examination about the completeness of the records, right?¶

21 22 23 Q. And I think you mentioned that before 9/11, the airlines weren’t always as complete with providing manifests as they were after 9/11; is that right?¶

25 Q. But as we discussed, not all the information on this TECS¶

Q. And I believe that you testified that that was a flight from Dusseldorf to Newark; is that right?¶

4 5 Q. You mentioned certain columns that came from the kiosks and the people who actually swiped the passports in at the immigration sites; is that right?¶

7 8 Q. And so, in fact, the site that you discussed was the site where people passed through?¶

10 11 Q. And that would get populated when that traveler went through that site, right?¶

13 14 15 Q. And the date and time you said should get updated with that information of when that passenger goes through the site in the TECS report if they go through that immigration site, right?¶

16 MS. : Objection, your Honor.¶

17 If we can just place this in time.¶

18 Q. I’m talking about prior to 9/11.¶

19 A. I’m sorry, say the question again.¶

20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. We’re talking about records prior to 9/11. You said that for any of these records, before 9/11 or not, the date and time reflects the date and time — first it reflects the date and time of the flight. But if the person goes through an immigration site, it then gets updated to reflect the time that they went through the kiosk and got their passport stamped;¶

report comes from the airlines, isn’t that right?¶

4 Q. And that is information that comes from the people on the ground at the immigration sites, not from the airlines, right?¶

5 6 A. Not from the people, but from the actual kiosk, yeah, or the — the booth.¶

7 Q. From the computer systems that they are working on, right?¶

8 A. Correct.¶

9 10 Q. Okay. And so that’s not dependent on whether the airlines has given their manifests or not, right?¶

12 13 14 15 Q. Okay. So if we look at that last page again of the exhibit, ■-1, and let’s just take an example. You see the second entry from the bottom, that’s a flight on May 27th, 2000, for¶

16 A. Correct.¶

17 Q. And you see that there is a site listed there, right?¶

18 A. Yes.¶

19 Q. That’s Alpha 263, right?¶

20 A. Yes.¶

21 22 Q. And there is a date and time listed for that — for that border crossing, right?¶

23 A. Yes.¶

24 25 Q. Okay. And it’s that site and that date and time would reflect when they actually passed through immigration, right?¶

correct?¶

A. Correct. Yes.¶

4 5 Q. All right. And if we look just down below at the entry for the DUsseldorf flight that you were just asked about, right?¶

7 Q. That also reflects a site, does it not?¶

9 Q. And it reflects a date at least of that entry, right?¶

11 12 13 Q. So that record reflects an actual border crossing at a site in an immigration line at an airport for it? doesn’t¶

15 Q. Okay. And that is not dependent on the airlines, right?¶

16 A. No. Correct.¶

17 Q. Okay. One moment, please.¶

18 THE COURT: Okay.¶

19 MR. EVERDELL: No further questions, your Honor.¶

20 THE COURT: Okay.¶

21 RECROSS EXAMINATION¶

22 BY MS.¶

23 Q. In the 1990s, there were no digital kiosk stands, right?¶

24 A. There were no digital kiosk stamps?¶

25 Q. Stands.¶

Q. That is not dependent on the airline information; correct?¶

4 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

5 6 7 Q. Officer Aznaran, based on your experience as a CBP officer and your review of CBP records, the CBP records from the 1990s were paper records; correct?¶

8 MR. EVERDELL: Objection. Foundation.¶

9 THE COURT: Sustained.¶

10 11 MS. : Your Honor, may I have just one moment please?¶

12 THE COURT: Okay.¶

13 (Counsel conferred)¶

14 15 Q. Officer Aznaran, do you know whether they were paper records in the 1990s?¶

16 MR. EVERDELL: Objection.¶

17 Asked and answered.¶

18 THE COURT: Overruled.¶

19 A. I’m sorry, say the question again.¶

20 Q. Do you know whether they were paper records in the 1990s?¶

22 Q. And were they paper records?¶

24 25 Q. And before 9/11, were paper records always logged in the system?¶

A. II, stands? I — I don’t know.¶

Q. Well, it was paper records; correct?¶

MR. EVERDELL: Objection. Foundation.¶

4 5 Q. Do you know if in the 1990s, before 9/11, if paper records were logged into CBP’s system?¶

6 A. I would think that they were, but I’m not sure.¶

7 MR. EVERDELL: Objection. He’s speculating.¶

8 THE COURT: Well, the answer is “I’m not sure,” so¶

9 10 MS. : Your Honor, may I have just one moment?¶

11 THE COURT: Okay.¶

12 (Counsel conferred)¶

13 MS. : Nothing further, your Honor.¶

15 MR. EVERDELL: Nothing further, your Honor.¶

16 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Aznaran.¶

17 You may step down. You are excused.¶

18 (Witness excused)¶

19 THE COURT: Defense may call its next witness.¶

20 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, at this time we call¶

21 Dominique Hyppolite.¶

22 DOMINIQUE HYPPOLITE,¶

23 called as a witness by the Defendant,¶

24 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:¶

25 THE COURT: Thank you. You may inquire,¶

MR. EVERDELL: Objection. Foundation.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Ms. Menninger.¶

MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.¶

BY MS. MENNINGER:¶

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hyppolite.¶

Q. Where do you live?¶

A. In West Palm Beach, Florida.¶

Q. In Florida?¶

Q. And how long have you lived there?¶

A. Thirty-five years.¶

A. With Palm Beach School District.¶

Q. And where is the Palm Beach School District located?¶

A. In Florida, 3300 Forest Boulevard, West Palm Beach,¶

Florida, 33406.¶

Q. Thank you.¶

And what is your title at the Palm Beach School¶

District?¶

A. As a specialist.¶

Q. What are your job responsibilities?¶

A. I coordinate the processing of subpoenas and represent the district as a record custodian for trial and depositions.¶

Q. So you do subpoena responses for trials and depositions of¶

5 6 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the way that school records are kept for the Palm Beach County School District?¶

7 A. Yes,¶

8 9 Q. And can you describe for the jury a little bit about how student records are kept.¶

10 11 12 13 14 A. Each school has a data processor and record custodian depend on the level. Elementary, they have data processor. And middle school, they have — each grade has a — someone that takes care of records. And high school, they have record custodian.¶

15 16 Q. And are the student’s records entered into the system at the time the student is there at the school?¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, . And the records follow the student. If the student — when the student is in elementary school. And once they pull more to middle, and then everything follow the student. And there is no information on the student in the elementary school. Middle, and then it’s transferred to high school. And then after three years, then the student leave the school system, and then the records and — are — they send the records to the district to be purged and kept at the district level.¶

records from the Palm Beach County School District?¶

A. Students records.¶

Q. Student records?¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 A. Yes. After three years, when the student withdraw from Palm Beach — from the schools, and then if the student is - exceptional student education, the schools keeps the record for five years. If the student is a regular student, after three years the records are purged and processed and kept at the district.¶

10 Q. And are they kept electronically?¶

11 A. Yes,¶

12 13 Q. Are you able to go and search for a particular student’s name in the system?¶

14 A. Definitely, yes. I have access to that.¶

15 16 Q. And when you enter a student’s name in the system, are you able to pull up certain of their education records?¶

18 19 Q. Is that true even if the student went to school in the ’90s or the early 2000s?¶

20 A. Yes,¶

21 22 Q. So does the Palm Beach County School keep records for decades, for example, on students?¶

24 25 Q. Are there certain records that they get rid of? I think you said some were purged.¶

Q. Does the Palm Beach County School District keep some electronic records of all students that have gone to school in the district?¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

A. Yes, they keep the most significant information on the student, and then they do that according to the procedures of the school board of Palm Beach County.¶

Q. Great. And were you asked to search for certain student files related to our case here?¶

Q. Did you put those students’ name into the system and pull up the records that the district still keeps for those students?¶

II. MENNINGER: Your Honor, may I approach with some records?¶

THE COURT: Yes. Although it’s 4:59, so are we wrapping up?¶

MS. MENNINGER: I probably have 10 to 15 more minutes, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: We’ll have to break.¶

MS. MENNINGER: All right.¶

THE COURT: We’ll break here, members of the jury, for the evening. Same schedule for tomorrow. Thank you so much.¶

See you then.¶

THE COURT: Mr. Hyppolite, the witness may step down and out for the evening. Thank you.¶

(Witness not present)¶

4 5 6 7 8 MS. : Your Honor, I would just note that we previously offered to stipulate to this witness’s testimony. We’re happy to stipulate to the remainder of it if he can be released. I don’t know whether the defense would like that. They did us that courtesy with another witness from Florida who had to stay overnight, so I wanted to offer it.¶

9 THE COURT: Thank you.¶

10 MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.¶

11 12 I’ll speak with the government afterwards about a potential stipulation.¶

13 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.¶

14 Other matters?¶

15 MS. : Nothing from the government, your Honor.¶

16 17 18 MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. Just that we have conferrals on the inconsistent statements we are planning to do after we finish.¶

19 20 THE COURT: What I’d like is for you to identify what remains in dispute. What time can I hear from you on that?¶

21 MS. MENNINGER: 7:30?¶

22 MS. : That sounds reasonable to us, your Honor.¶

23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. If there are issues that remain in dispute, I guess I could ask for anything, just like a joint chart that —¶

THE COURT: Everyone may be seated.¶

All right. Matters to take up.¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. I think we can take the same chart we have both been working off of and just eliminate the ones that are no longer — or somehow with color indicate the ones that are still in dispute.¶

THE COURT: Yes. Or give me a new chart with the ones that are in dispute and each just very briefly state each side’s position.¶

MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Okay. The only other thing — II, right.¶

So I gave you till 6 o’clock on what I didn’t recall at the time. It was your response on the remaining witness. I sort of staggered the response time on the motion to preclude based on when we thought we would have witnesses.¶

So who remains in dispute who will be called tomorrow?¶

MS. MENNINGER: I think there were Eva, , and Kelly. I think Mr. , I believe, we’re not calling.¶

MR. EVERDELL: That’s right, your Honor.¶

MS. MENNINGER: So that one is no longer in dispute.¶

THE COURT: Okay. So you said Eva,¶

■. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: So they will be called tomorrow if they are not precluded.¶

MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. I believe so.¶

4 And so what is tomorrow looking like?¶

5 6 7 8 9 MS. MENNINGER: I think we will be done, your Honor. I am looking at my co-counsel. We’ve had to — we have to make a couple of inquiries because your Honor ruled this morning on anonymity, and there may be some other issues that we have to figure out whether that will carry forward to Monday or not.¶

10 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, sorry to interrupt.¶

11 12 13 14 There may be one witness that does carry over to Monday. We have to figure that out. But our goal, I think, is to try to wrap up, with the exception of this one potential witness, by tomorrow.¶

15 I have a moment?¶

16 THE COURT: Yes.¶

17 (Counsel conferred)¶

18 19 20 MR. EVERDELL: 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.¶

21 THE COURT: Okay.¶

22 23 24 25 So finishing tomorrow or a very short witness on Monday means closings on Monday and then charge and to the jury. Okay. I’ll permit that so long as it does not interfere with that schedule.¶

THE COURT: All right.¶

So I’ll get the defense’s response to the motion to preclude on that this evening.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: It will not interfere, Judge.¶

4 THE COURT: It’s like I’m getting triple-teamed here.¶

5 I can barely keep up.¶

6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Sometimes five heads, six heads may be better than one, sometimes maybe not.¶

8 9 10 But there is an issue about a government rebuttal witness that I don’t know if that’s been resolved yet. And I just wanted to lay that out there for the Court.¶

11 12 13 14 MS. : Yes, your Honor. We are leaning against calling that witness. We need to circle up as a team and we’ll have a final decision tomorrow morning for your Honor. I doubt we will be calling any rebuttal witnesses.¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Okay. I guess the only thing I would ask you to consider is if we have time left over tomorrow, if there is a very short witness on Monday, if perhaps the government does intend to call a rebuttal, if you would consider using the time tomorrow for the rebuttal, if that’s acceptable to the defense.¶

21 22 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: If there is going to be a rebuttal witness, your Honor, there’s going to be briefing on it tonight.¶

24 THE COURT: I’m here all day.¶

25 When will you come to a decision?¶

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, just —¶

4 5 6 THE COURT: All right. So by 8 o’clock. So if there is, and that requires briefing, when will I get your brief, Mr. Pagliuca?¶

7 MR. PAGLIUCA: 8:05, your Honor.¶

8 THE COURT: It’s in the can. Glad to hear it.¶

9 I don’t know if you are joking, actually.¶

10 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, I’m not joking, your Honor. 8:05 is when you will get it.¶

12 THE COURT: Good deal. I like it.¶

13 Okay. A couple other odds and ends.¶

14 15 16 17 I got a letter yesterday from counsel for a potential defense witness. As far as I could tell, there was no application in the letter. I don’t know if anyone has an application.¶

18 19 20 MS. : I don’t believe there’s any application from that witness or from the government with respect to that witness, your Honor.¶

21 22 MS. MENNINGER: We don’t have it, your Honor. I don’t know what you’re talking about.¶

23 THE COURT: One of you was cc’d on it.¶

24 MS. : I believe Ms. Menninger was cc’d on it.¶

25 May I confer?¶

MS. : Your Honor, I think we can come to a decision tonight by 8 o’clock. I’ll be with Ms. Menninger until 7:30. At 8 o’clock.¶

THE COURT: You¶

MENNINGER: Your Honor, if we could consider whether what we need to do as far as docketing that or making a record about it, we could do it tomorrow morning at the 8:45 mark. It may be important for a foundational — an exhibit that may be predicated on an unavailable witness, and that’s the only reason I am considering whether anything else needs to happen.¶

THE COURT: Okay. You’ll confer.¶

MS. MENNINGER: Yes.¶

THE COURT: Okay. But, as I said, I didn’t understand an application in that letter, so I’m not doing anything with it.¶

MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we just needed a record of that officially in case we needed it for a foundational purpose, and so that was the reason that I had said if —¶

THE COURT: Okay. If that becomes a judicial document, if I use it in some way, it will be docketed.¶

MS. MENNINGER: Right. I understand.¶

THE COURT: Okay. And then the only other thing I want to ask about is defense counsel as to timing. It’s usually around here where I allocute the defendant as to their rights.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I would ask that we wait until tomorrow please.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.¶

THE COURT: We will do that.¶

MS. : Just one quick question, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Yes.¶

MS. : Is there any sense of when we might expect a draft of the jury charge?¶

THE COURT: It will be tomorrow.¶

MS. : Thank you, your Honor.¶

THE COURT: That’s tonight’s project for the 9 a.m. conference.¶

I don’t suppose anyone has a time estimate of closings?¶

do — I don’t think we have an idea yet. As soon as we¶

MS. STERNHEIM: What’s a closing, Judge?¶

THE COURT: Do you prefer “summations”?¶

MS. STERNHEIM: I prefer that, too. I prefer actually getting two cracks at it, like the government, but we’ll be sparse. I don’t think we’re in a position to inform the Court yet.¶

THE COURT: Okay. But presumably we’re looking at¶

completing closings and the charge on Monday.¶

MS. STERNHEIM: Yes.¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

I inquire, your Honor? In some courtrooms I’ve been in there is a rule, perhaps not strongly enforced, but strongly suggested, that the government only reserve a certain portion of their summation for the rebuttal piece because otherwise it ends up being a bit of a more in rebuttal than in the actual substance. I don’t know if your Honor has that practice, but I would request that some reasonable percentage be allocated to the first versus the rebuttal portion.¶

MS. : Your Honor, I expect the rebuttal will be significantly shorter than the closing. I don’t think that’s going to be an issue.¶

THE COURT: Well, it certainly should be. It should be rebuttal and not —¶

MS. : That’s exactly right, your Honor. And I’ll be doing the rebuttal. I fully intend it to be much shorter than the closing and to the point, as is consistent with our office practice before your Honor and in this district.¶

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else on that?¶

Let me just check my various inputs to see if I’m missing — check with my law clerk.¶

(Adjourned to December 17, 2021 at 8:45 a.m.)¶

All right. I don’t have anything else.¶

So I will hear from you this evening. You’ll get the charge tomorrow. And I’ll see you at 8:45. Thank you.¶

INDEX OF EXAMINATION¶

Examination of: Page¶

[REDACTED]¶

Direct By Mr. Everdell … . . 2327¶

Cross By Ms. [REDACTED] … . . 2386¶

RAGHU SUD¶

Direct By Mr. Everdell … . . 2388¶

Cross By Ms. [REDACTED] … . . 2397¶

ELIZABETH LOFTUS¶

Direct By Ms. Sternheim … . . 2398¶

Cross By Ms. [REDACTED] … . . 2454¶

Redirect By Ms. Sternheim … . . 2482¶

MICHAEL WILLIAM AZNARAN¶

Direct By Mr. Everdell … . . 2486¶

Cross By Ms. [REDACTED] … . . 2517¶

Redirect By Mr. Everdell … . . 2522¶

Recross By Ms. [REDACTED] … . . 2525¶

DOMINIQUE HYPPOLITE¶

Direct By Ms. Menninger … . . 2528¶

DEFENDANT EXHIBITS¶

Exhibit No. Received¶

CE3 through CE8 … . . 2363¶

RS-1 … . . 2394¶

EF-1 … . . 2450¶

MA1 … . . 2506¶

Keyboard shortcuts

Go to a page: `g` then

Ghislaine Maxwell trial transcript, Dec. 16, 2021, rulings on attorney witnesses

DIRECT EXAMINATION¶

CROSS-EXAMINATION¶

16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION¶