UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 24 Cr. 542 (AS) SEAN COMBS, a/k/a "Puff Daddy," a/k/a "P. Diddy," a/k/a "Diddy," a/k/a "PD," a/k/a "Love," Defendant. Trial
New York, N.Y. May 30, 2025 8:35 a.m. Before: HON. ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, District Judge -and a Jury- APPEARANCES JAY CLAYTON United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MADISON R. SMYSER EMILY A. JOHNSON MAURENE R. COMEY MEREDITH FOSTER MITZI STEINER MARY C. SLAVIK Assistant United States Attorneys APPEARANCES
(Continued)
AGNIFILO INTRATER LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: MARC A. AGNIFILO TENY R. GERAGOS -and- SHER TREMONTE BY: ANNA M. ESTEVAO -and- SHAPIRO ARATO BACH LLP BY: ALEXANDRA A.E. SHAPIRO JASON A. DRISCOLL -and- XAVIER R. DONALDSON BRIAN STEEL NICOLE WESTMORELAND ALSO PRESENT: LUCY GAVIN, AUSA Paralegal Specialist SHANNON BECKER, AUSA Paralegal Specialist RAYMOND MCLEOD, Defense Paralegal Specialist
(Trial resumed; jury not present)
THE COURT: Everyone ready to go?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Agnifilo.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Can you tell me, what is the current situation in terms of your ability to speak with Mr. Combs and confer on trial days? Give it to me.
MR. AGNIFILO: What we tend to do, we tend to stay here in the building until 5. We go down to the marshals' lockup on the fourth floor. At 5, because I think of how the count works at the MDC, they take Mr. Combs back to the MDC, leaving here at 5, so we have a pretty hard cutoff at 5.
And the cutoff for visits -- if we wanted to go there and see him in person, it would take some time for him to get there, take some time for us to get there, so I would imagine, if they were there by 5:30, there might be some delay, we can probably see him between -- I'm wrong about that. Because of the processing, we probably could not get into the MDC before the 7:30 p.m. cutoff, so we are really talking about, they bring him to the building at about 8. We see him in the lockup from 8 until right before we come up and see your Honor, and then we obviously have breaks, and we can see him on the fourth floor. But then after court, if we end at 3, we have two hours here. If we end at 4, we have one hour here.
At the current time he doesn't have any minutes. That's a big issue. I understand that's a policy matter at the MDC. But like I said, every trial is a little bit different. We just need more contact of any sort, putting a premium on in-person meetings, because that's more important.
Let me just add one thing to the mix. When we see him here, other than if we see him in the back, which is very fleeting, there is a screen between us, and you can't really see documents through the screen very well, and you can't pass documents. That's really an important feature. That's the overview.
THE COURT: Help me with the minutes because the MDC says that for May Mr. Combs has used 47 of his 300 minutes, so he has extra minutes there. Maybe I'm missing something, but that is what they report. Because I have relayed everything that you have told me in terms of the distinctions between the legal calls and the social calls, the fact that the social calls are limited by minutes, and you'd like those to be augmented.
MR. AGNIFILO: Correct.
THE COURT: I'm just relaying what I hear, which is that there are available minutes. If that's not true, though, that should not be a problem.
Here is what I can do right now.
First, to the extent that there is a limitation on the minutes, I think we can augment those minutes so that we can facilitate phone conversations.
MR. AGNIFILO: That would be very helpful.
THE COURT: We can do that. But I would like to understand what the issue is because I'm being told by the MDC that there are available minutes, so that's just a disconnect that we need to work out.
MR. AGNIFILO: It's a disconnect. I have no doubt that what the MDC told your Honor might be something the MDC believes. From our end, Mr. Combs points out he tried to use the phone this morning, and he has no minutes. We have been operating on the premise for weeks that he has no available minutes, and that's sort of a practical belief, meaning that he has tried and he has not been able to do it.
THE COURT: We can get to the bottom of that. If we need some augmentation of the minutes, then I think that's doable. So we can do that.
MR. AGNIFILO: That's helpful. That certainly would be very, very helpful. I know I'm being pushy. I recognize that. It would be very helpful, certainly for the weekend. And the reason it would be helpful for the weekend is because visiting is only between 8 a.m and -- it's 3 p.m., but they usually -- we have to wrap up before that, like sometimes 2:30, which seems like a lot of time, I recognize, but it's really not that much time, and it's just not enough time. The minutes over the weekend would be great.
At the risk of continuing on this path, at one point the additional in-person meetings is really going to be critical. It's critical now, but it's going to be more critical.
THE COURT: You stopped me in the middle.
As to the minutes, if there is a way for someone on your team to check on that, based on what I've been told, which is that there are available minutes, if there is some other allocation and I'm just not looking at the right number, then let me know, but, otherwise, you should have the minutes. If you don't have the minutes, you have to let me know so that I can go and follow up on this.
MR. AGNIFILO: We will do that.
THE COURT: As to the timing, this case is pushing the boundaries, as you probably understand and appreciate, of what court security and the marshals are able to do, given even the additional staffing that has been devoted to this case, so that is putting a lot of pressure on everyone. It's putting a lot of pressure on you too, and I appreciate that.
However, what we can do is get Mr. Combs here by 7 a.m. and afford counsel the ability to be there with him at 7 a.m. so that you have substantial time in the morning to confer with Mr. Combs. That's on the front end. On the back end, we can afford access for you and Mr. Combs until 6 p.m. here. So that's giving you, if we end at 3, and even if we have some posttrial matters to address, let's say 3:30, another two and a half hours here.
Those two things -- that's maxing out the marshal service because they have to then deal with transport back to the MDC, and then they have to be back here in the morning. So there are serious constraints doing anything longer than that. That's a lot of extra time.
Those are the things that we can implement to provide you and to provide Mr. Combs with additional access to counsel.
MR. AGNIFILO: First of all, thank you.
Here are my concerns with -- let me also say the marshal service has been wonderful to us, and I want to thank them publicly and how helpful they have been consistently.
Part of the problem that we face is the facilities that we are in, the marshal service doesn't allow us to show him documents, doesn't allow him to read documents, and there are a lot of -- it just takes time. We are constrained if we want to show him exhibits. We want him to read text messages, emails, things like that. We really can't do it in the facility we have. We would have to do that at the MDC. We can do that over the weekend.
The problem is, the trial is faster moving than that, and so things come up during the week where we really need -- I am very, very grateful for all that the marshal service has done and all that your Honor has done, and your Honor has devoted a lot of time and attention to this. I think we really need to be able to sit with him during the week.
THE COURT: The alternative is that we arrange for earlier transport back to the MDC and potentially extend in some way the hours there. My assumption was that the problem is that just getting back to Brooklyn and the transport, the processing, everything takes so much time that it doesn't leave much of any time on the back end.
MR. AGNIFILO: That's true. That's right. The way the count works is, the count at the MDC -- we wouldn't get here by the time the count started, and so we would run into the same problem. I think the reason that the marshal service keeps him here until 5 very much coincides with the count at the MDC, which tends to clear at about 5 or 5:30. It wouldn't work to bring him back. We probably wouldn't get that much extra time. We are better off meeting here in terms of the amount of time. Why that's difficult is, we are better off meeting at the MDC in terms of the ability to sit with him at a table and show him things.
I hear the Court.
THE COURT: For present purposes we are not going to solve this all the way right now, so we got to break down the issue.
As it was presented to the Court, there was an issue with timing. I understand what you're saying now. Let's see if this works in terms of timing. And then if there is a further issue, you can raise it to me, and I can see whether there is an option there, if there is some limitation on review of documents.
MR. AGNIFILO: I understand.
THE COURT: Let's work on the first thing. Let's get that in place so that you have further time access, and then on the other issue we will see what we can do.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, Judge. I'm very grateful. I know that I keep bringing this up.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. AGNIFILO: The one thing that I will sort of say is final, and then I'll sit down, and we will leave this alone. I understand the marshal staffing, and I appreciate all that they have done so far. I think if your Honor issued an order, it would be an order. There are all sorts of things -- in my experience, it's amazing what you have to do when you have to do it.
THE COURT: I understand. But it has to be an appropriate order that makes sense in the circumstances of the case.
Just so you understand, the access that you and Mr. Combs have received in this case is much greater, much, much greater than defendants in many other cases.
MR. AGNIFILO: I recognize that.
THE COURT: This is a unique case, for the reasons that you have said. That may be appropriate here.
However, I need to understand in real terms what the limitations are that would require the kind of things that you're asking for in every instance. That's the reason why we have had this back and forth and why instead of just ordering something that may be infeasible, I really need to speak with the interested parties and make sure that what we are doing makes sense.
MR. AGNIFILO: I absolutely want that. I want to foster that. And I think this has been sort of a graduated process to a certain extent. And I appreciate everyone trying to work with us and Mr. Combs.
We will do exactly what your Honor says. We will tackle the issues that seems to be open issues, and we will come back to your Honor with a proposal that we think is necessary and hopefully feasible.
THE COURT: Good.
Summary charts. Who is going to address that?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
The chart that we would really need a ruling on is 1402, which relates to the chart of hotel reservations and then other information within the rows to basically give context to why those hotel reservations are relevant. Those all relate to Ms. Ventura.
We have tried to confer with the defense and they, as is their right, have maintained that their view is that these charts under no circumstances can come in under Rule 1006.
Understanding that, we took a look at defense counsel's letter, and we made some adjustments to the chart.
If I can ask Ms. Foster to pull up Government Exhibit 1402.
THE COURT: I have it up, if that's the one that was sent earlier.
MS. COMEY: It was the one that was sent last night. It's helpful for me to look at it as we are talking about it.
What we tried to do was change some of the way that the information is presented in order to make it as neutral as possible and not argumentative because our goal here truly is to present the information contained in hundreds, if not thousands of pages of records to the jury in an efficient way.
Our goal here is not to try to sum up through this witness. Our goal here is not to try to make an argument. It is to efficiently and clearly present evidence to the jury.
I don't know if we have 1402 up. We don't have it. Then I'll take a look at it. The way that we did that, the changes that we made, your Honor, were -- with respect to travel, the defense had fairly pointed out that just having a yes or a dash could have suggested somehow that the element of interstate travel had been met. So we replaced the yes with just the flight information itself and a cite to the exhibit that has that flight information. Again, it's just conveying the information from the flight records, which is exactly what Rule 1006 contemplates.
THE COURT: Just to be clear, when it says in the first row, GX 3A-103, that is a flight record for whom?
MS. COMEY: That is a flight record for Jules Theodore, your Honor. We can add that, your Honor. We can add the name in there as well. But it is a flight record for the escort, Jules Theodore, to show the timing of the fact that this flight happens --
THE COURT: Understood.
MS. COMEY: -- right around the time of the hotel reservation.
And the point of that is, we are not, through this chart -- I don't think the chart itself says that the flight must have been part of this scheme. I think it just shows up the timing, that this flight happens right around the time of the hotel record.
And the summary witness is not going to testify or opine that Jules Theodore must have been traveling exclusively for this meeting. All the summary witness will say is the records show that there is this hotel reservation and then that there are travel records showing that one of these individuals, Jules Theodore, traveled around the time of the reservation.
And then also in the row around the same time of the reservation there are communications between Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs in which the face of the messages themselves discuss a meeting and, similarly, that there are communications with or regarding one of the escorts in the escort column around the time. So it is just matching up in chronology the timing of these different exhibits.
And the reason that we need the columns to the right is because, otherwise, the columns on the left of just hotel records are meaningless. The fact that there are just hotel records doesn't on its own create any relevance to the charges in this case because I think, as the jury has heard, Mr. Combs was a very successful and very busy businessman who traveled all over the world, who stayed in hotels for all sorts of reasons, as is Ms. Ventura. They have heard that they went on tour. They have heard that they went to club appearances. So a hotel record on its own, without the context in the rest of the columns, is not necessarily relevant to this case. So that's why the columns to the right are necessary in order to explain which hotel records are in this chart.
THE COURT: Are these GX exhibits already in evidence?
MS. COMEY: Some of them are and some of them we are planning to offer before this chart is offered.
THE COURT: Why wouldn't all of those exhibits be inadmissible if they would only be relevant to this chart connecting the dots between all these issues?
MS. COMEY: I think they are all relevant because of the other evidence in the chart, if that makes sense, your Honor. When we go to offer these hotel records, if there were a relevance objection, our answer would be, well, your Honor, we can pull up each of the exhibits that is in the rest of this chart to overcome our burden to prove to your Honor that the 401 relevance bar is met.
THE COURT: I understand the positions. I understand what is being conveyed here.
Let me hear from the defense on this exhibit.
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I think the problem -- there are a couple of things, but the problem with the chart is not only the relevance point your Honor made, but the purpose of the chart is argumentative.
THE COURT: Which parts are the most troublesome?
MS. SHAPIRO: I think --
THE COURT: Let me take a step back. There is some part of this chart that is a proper 1006 summary. What do you have an issue with?
MS. SHAPIRO: For instance, if the chart simply had the date, the location, and then -- of the hotel, maybe the reservation name, those -- and summarize the ones that were relevant, we'd be fine with that. But the problem with the chart is, it ties together these other pieces of evidence in the way a summation is supposed to do. So that's the problem with it.
And I should also add that my understanding from discussions with Ms. Johnson was that we actually need a ruling on the other ones as well because I think the Court's ruling will help us resolve potential disputes about the underlying records.
So if your Honor will indulge me, I want to take a step back. For instance, there are some other exhibits that relate to some of the other charts that the defense has issues with because, for instance, there is financial records and airplane records, and they are voluminous and include -- the underlying records, that is, irrelevant materials.
What we have said to them is, a proper summary chart, for instance, as to the airline records would just extract from the voluminous documents the relevant ones that, through other evidence, the government can tie to the charges.
Instead, what they have done in this chart, as an example, they pull out things from a bunch of different pieces of evidence and put them together in a way that supports their argument to the jury about what these records show.
THE COURT: Isn't your main argument not really on the first seven columns but really on the last four? Because, as Ms. Comey pointed out, if you just had the initial columns, then it would be a summary of voluminous information. But they say that the real relevance comes into play by pointing out that, yes, there were communications between Mr. Combs and Ms. Ventura and, yes, there were communications from the escorts.
They say relevance. You say that that's argumentative and is an attempt to prove their point through something that is regarded as evidence. If we just had the first seven columns there and cut off the last four, why would that pose an issue under 1006? Because I think there is a fair argument that they are voluminous materials that are being summarized here, so they would fall within the text of 1006. Without the first four columns, there is nothing to be argumentative about.
The government will then argue in closings that these are the freak-offs, and they will point out the communications for each of these that show that these are the events that they believe constitute the sex trafficking.
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I think that's a great step in the right direction, and we will take that, but I would still object to the escort and travel columns for similar reasons and particularly the use of the word escort. But I think that the escort and travel columns are also --
THE COURT: What's the issue with the travel column?
MS. SHAPIRO: It's just that it's being connected up to the hotel -- I guess if you get rid of the escort column, then --
THE COURT: You don't have an issue with the underlying content? You have an issue with the characterization of the escort?
MS. SHAPIRO: Correct, your Honor.
Obviously, this is all subject to us checking this to make sure things are connected up so these are --
THE COURT: As to the travel, what's the grievance with the travel column? They are travel records.
MS. SHAPIRO: Right. I think if we got rid of the escort column, we'd have less of a problem with that.
THE COURT: Meaning the title.
MS. SHAPIRO: I think the problem with using the escort and travel column is, it's a similar point, which is that they are saying that -- they are connecting up the stay in the hotel with the escort traveling to that city to go to that hotel, which is something they should be arguing or that it should be a demonstrative.
THE COURT: If it just had the people's names and the flight records, then it's really just summarizing all the materials that are in the record. It's not saying anything about -- an argumentative way about what those show.
MS. SHAPIRO: They are saying that it shows that the escort went to that hotel, right? Because if the reservation name is Frank Black or one of the other --
THE COURT: You don't dispute that these individuals -- that there were documents relating to those individuals that correspond to the dates in question. Because if we modified this exhibit in the way that we have been discussing, that's all this demonstrative would go to show. It wouldn't show anything else. It wouldn't even show --
MS. SHAPIRO: We don't know, without testimony about the specific date, for instance, that Jules Theodore, even if he traveled from LAX to NYC actually went to the London Hotel on that date, and then the government is going to make whatever arguments. We don't know that --
THE COURT: That's an issue with these references here. We have this column for the escorts, and then I'm seeing exhibit numbers. And I have not looked at those exhibit numbers, but I'm assuming that those correspond to the dates in question and relate to visits to those hotels. That's my assumption based on seeing this.
MS. SHAPIRO: Can I have a moment, your Honor.
I guess what I'm saying is is that the exhibits that are being cited in those two columns are travel records, as I understand it, that show that those escorts traveled to those cities on those dates. But they don't connect up to like, did that escort actually go to the hotel?
The government can make whatever arguments it wants about inferences, but my point is that on their face they are not connected up without some sort of an argument or witness testimony.
THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. You're saying in the escort column those exhibits that are referenced are simply the travel records.
MS. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor, correct.
THE COURT: Fair.
Ms. Comey.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, it's different in each column.
Taking the conversation you just had with Ms. Shapiro piece by piece, first, we are happy to change the title escorts, understanding that that's drawing a conclusion about who these people were. Whatever neutral title the defense wants or the Court wants that accurately conveys the information there, which is just how we identified the third party --
THE COURT: You don't need a title. Really you don't. You got the name there. If the name is there, what more do you need to summarize --
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I just mean at the header. Instead of escorts, if it's just name or something, for clarity.
THE COURT: Name.
MS. COMEY: Something like that, that's fine, your Honor.
In terms of what the records are, it depends row by row. Sometimes it's a text message saying go to room whatever in the London Hotel. Sometimes it's a travel record.
But if I may, the other columns, I think that the Combs employees communication column, although I think there is a basis to include it, it is fair to have that removed because I think that that -- I think the defense's issue with that is it's trying to draw an inference of whether there may have been enterprise members involved in organizing those. If we want to remove that column, I think that's fair.
The concern I have about removing video and Ventura/Combs communications and escort communications is that those three columns are part of how we identify who the name is within that column. So either Jules Theodore appears on one of the videos or Clayton Howard appears on one of the videos whose metadata reflects that it was recorded on the date that overlaps with the hotel reservation. Or there are text messages, like I just said, between Jules Theodore and Ms. Ventura saying, for example, meet at whatever the London Hotel room.
And the reason that the Ventura/Combs communications are relevant is that, as I think we have heard testimony about so far, Ms. Ventura was not the only woman that Mr. Combs was having these hotel nights with. We have heard evidence that he was having hotel nights with Gina during the same time period and hotel nights with Ms. Porter during the same time period.
So part of the way we identified which hotel records under, for example, Frank Black or booked by his companies or his assistants were relevant to Ms. Ventura was, in part, based on text messages between Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs showing that they were meeting up at those dates.
So part of the reason that we have these particular hotel records, which is a small percentage of the total hotel records over this decade long period, is because we didn't want to unintentionally include records where there was actually a meeting with Ms. Porter or with Gina or with someone else. So that's why the column regarding Ventura/Combs communications and the escort communications and the video column I think fall within the category that your Honor was discussing with Ms. Shapiro of just the purpose of them is to explain why these hotel records are in this chart, as opposed to any others.
I take Ms. Shapiro's point that she does not want us to use this through this summary witness to sum up. The summary witness will not be testifying that she knows for a fact what happened in those hotel rooms, that she knows for a fact whether in fact an escort who said he is going to room whatever at the London Hotel actually went to that hotel. All the summary witness will be saying is, there are messages that say, I'm going to the London Hotel on this date, and on that same date this was a reservation under Frank Black at that same hotel.
THE COURT: Let me ask you a question, if I could. On the second row --
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Where there is no Ventura/Combs communications.
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: What does that row reflect? Remind me what that is in terms of the government's argument. What kind of event? Who was involved?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think that would be a freak-off involving Jules Theodore and Mr. Combs and Ms. Ventura, and I believe the escort communications would reflect a text message or an email between Mr. Theodore and either Ms. Ventura or Mr. Combs about meeting up.
THE COURT: Why wouldn't you be able to have date, location, the two location columns, reservation name? I'm not really sure why extra room charge is even in here. But no one has really raised an issue with that. And then the next column be names and have the names of the people there, meaning Ms. Ventura, if that's Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs.
MS. COMEY: We would merge the communications into that column.
THE COURT: Then in the parens have just the exhibits that go to their participation.
MS. COMEY: We can do that, your Honor.
THE COURT: If you can do that, then you can get rid of all the last four columns.
MS. COMEY: We could do that. I suppose we could put the video cite underneath the relevant name as well.
THE COURT: Then that would be, I think, a fairer summary of exhibits, as opposed to argumentative in the way that perhaps the defense is indicating. In the travel column, I suppose you don't even need that. You could just put that under the person's name --
MS. COMEY: We could, your Honor. That would end up taking quite a bit of time.
One of the elements we do need to prove is interstate travel. If we don't have just a column that summarizes that, we are going to need to pull up each individual record.
THE COURT: Those are flight records.
MS. COMEY: Those are flight records.
THE COURT: Let's call it flight records.
MS. COMEY: Sure, your Honor. We can call it flight records.
I'll get a copy of the transcript and make sure I'm making all of these changes accurately.
THE COURT: If we make those adjustments, Ms. Shapiro, that would seem -- I know you still disagree that that's a 1006 summary, but you would agree that's progress towards your view of what 1006 would permit, correct?
MS. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor. We think that's much better, and we will take what the Court gives us, but we are obviously preserving the objection.
THE COURT: Understood.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, if I may, this has been very helpful.
I am going to try to make similar changes to 1406, which is the Jane chart, so that we are consistent, and we don't have to have this discussion again about that exhibit.
THE COURT: That's 1406.
Am I right that there are just four summary exhibits left?
MS. COMEY: No, your Honor. We are prioritizing the ones that we are hoping to put in next week.
THE COURT: That's 1402 and 1406.
MS. COMEY: No, your Honor. That's the ones related to Ms. Ventura. So that's 1402, 1404, and 1405. Those three are the ones that we are seeking to put in either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
THE COURT: As for 1404, what is the purpose, really? What is the 1006 basis for the first two slides?
MS. COMEY: I am going to turn that over to Ms. Johnson.
THE COURT: Sorry. This is the bank account.
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, can we put those up on the screen so we can all see what we are talking about.
That can't be what it is.
THE COURT: 1404 is the pie chart.
MS. SHAPIRO: I'm seeing this for the first time. They have been changed quite considerably.
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, we reformatted the Excel charts to make them slightly easier to understand. All of this information was previously in the draft Excel chart that we submitted to the Court.
The slides all go together. What is attempted to be demonstrating is summarizing various financial records. In particular, this one would be an October 2012 Amex account and a charge from the Intercontinental Hotel for penthouse damage in the amount of $46,000 and change. That is paid by the Sean Combs American Express statement in October of 2012. And then --
THE COURT: Why do you need a summary to prove that nonvoluminous underlying two-page statement if it's anything like credit card statements that we all get?
MS. JOHNSON: The statement is many, many pages. It's well over two pages.
THE COURT: But somebody can just point out the line items for the Intercontinental Hotel and say for the month of October here are those line items.
Because I am going to get to the last page. That's a core 1006 summary. That happens in every case. You have bank records. You can't look at the bank records for all these different 20 banks, that would be voluminous, so you summarize that in a chart, and that would seem permissible.
It would seem like that the only missing link is just saying the $46,786 came from the American Express statement because that's the only thing that's missing in that chain of showing that amount was paid by the various entities. I take it the government's argument is those are all corporate entities that are part of the alleged RICO enterprise.
MS. JOHNSON: I understand your Honor's point with respect to this first slide.
I think the second slide is important to understand the third slide to show how this American Express bill of approximately $944,000 was paid by at least like five to 10 separate corporate bank accounts.
THE COURT: Why doesn't the last page show that?
MS. JOHNSON: I think that the visual shows how they are paid a little bit more cleanly. We can use the visual as a demonstrative, if the Court prefers.
THE COURT: I am going to exclude the first two pages. This last page is a proper summary and does summarize voluminous information without being argumentative. The first two slides are quintessential demonstratives, but I don't think you really need them. Because once you have the American Express statement with that exact number of $944,059, then you've got the chart that shows where the origin of all the payments was. You've got it right here.
MS. JOHNSON: Understanding the Court's ruling that those are quintessential demonstratives, I think the government would like to use at least slide 2 as a demonstrative.
THE COURT: You can absolutely use it as a demonstrative.
The other issue is whether it can go back to the jury room. This is a proper summary. It can go back to the jury room. But the other two would be illustrative aids under rule 107.
MS. JOHNSON: Understood, your Honor. We will re-mark those.
1405 is similar. It just shows different American Express payments.
THE COURT: We can make the similar --
MS. JOHNSON: We can show the funding.
THE COURT: It would be the second slide.
MS. JOHNSON: Right. This is summarizing the actual charges that hit the account that are relevant because in this case it's less complicated how the Amex is paid. At this particular time the American Express is paid only by one account, so this is just pulling out the relevant line items from what is a very voluminous American Express account statement.
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, if I may respond on this one that the issue we have with the last page of this one is that -- the second page, it has got names on the left side. We don't know where that's coming from. It's just out of thin air.
MS. JOHNSON: It's in the American Express statement because American Express statements pull point-of-sale information for flight records. So, for example, the charge on the American Express statement shows that it was for a flight record for that person.
MS. SHAPIRO: Is the person's name in the underlying record? Is that what you're saying?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
THE COURT: I think some modification can be made to make it more of a summary in the way that we did with 1402. It's tying -- I would just say what it is, meaning, if it's sale information for flight, and then you can have the exhibits that show that it's flight for a particular person in exhibits, I'm sure that you can address that issue. That's a minor modification to this chart.
MS. JOHNSON: OK. We can quote the line item, if that's the easiest.
THE COURT: Great. That's the second slide.
Ms. Shapiro, do you have an objection to either the first or a third slide here?
MS. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor. I would ask that the Court treat them the way it did the previous exhibit and that those should only be demonstratives.
THE COURT: Any issue with that, Ms. Johnson?
MS. JOHNSON: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: That takes care of that.
Anything else, Ms. Johnson, that we should address right now concerning these summary exhibits?
MS. JOHNSON: No, your Honor.
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I just have one moment to confer with Ms. Johnson? I think there may be an issue with two more --
THE COURT: What I'll ask, given that we are now running into the jury's time, why don't we get started. If we need to address it on the lunch break, we can address any issues.
MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: With that, can we have Mia back.
MR. STEEL: Your Honor, while Mia is coming in, can I address this honorable Court?
THE COURT: Yes, of course.
MR. STEEL: I just want to make sure this comports with what I believe the Court said is a good option.
We are making binders, unredacted binders, for Mia, the Court, all the parties, and the jurors. I believe that the numbers should work out. Then it will be shown, I believe, on the screen, with the Court's permission, to the audience redacted.
THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you for doing that. That's fine.
MR. STEEL: The only reason I bring it up now is assuming that is going to work.
THE COURT: Hold on. The witness is coming in. Why don't we close the door for just a moment.
Sorry. False alarm. One minute.
MR. STEEL: If the Court could just instruct, when it's appropriate, the witness. She will have unredacted. So don't say the name.
THE COURT: I think she will be mindful of that, but I will make sure she understands.
MR. STEEL: I don't want the Court to be in a bad position.
THE COURT: Thank you.
If Mia could please come in. Thank you.
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Welcome back, members of the jury.
Mia, you understand you're still under oath?
THE COURT: Ms. Smyser, you may proceed when ready.