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. June 2, 2025 8:45 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: Welcome, everybody. Please be seated. Let's start. I hope everyone had a great weekend.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes. Thank you, Judge. Hope you, as well.
THE COURT: Let's start with doing some feedback on these mics. We'll work on that. Let's start with the disputed exhibits for Mia. As to DX 1750, I agree with the government that the probative value, if any, is minimal and that it's cumulative to the 30 pages of testimony on Instagram posts that we've heard. Mr. Steel, are you still planning to use DX 50?
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, sorry, if I may.
THE COURT: All right. Let's, first of all, you need to be on a mic. Second of all, from here on out, it's perfectly fine to have an assist from another lawyer. The problem that I've been having is that there are a lot of little, like, different people standing up on one argument. So could you do me a favor and just, if someone is going to handle it and someone else wants to chime in or give their point,you know, what usually happens, that lawyer will go over to the lawyer who is arguing and either give them their point or have that lawyer say, Could I have this other attorney handle this part of it. That just makes it a little bit easier, I think, for the court reporters and everyone else to just keep track of what's going on. With that, Ms. Shapiro.
MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor. Thanks for the court's indulgence on our --
THE COURT: That's fine.
MS. SHAPIRO: Just to make the record complete, and I looked back at the transcript and I think we made some of these points in a general way, but I just wanted to be clear as to why the video is actually not cumulative of the photographs and the testimony that's been provided. As we indicated, it's the defense's belief that the aspect and demeanor of the witness is essentially a false persona that she's presenting to the jury. I wanted to just put a little more meat on the bones about why the video impeaches that and undermines it.
THE COURT: Let me, perhaps, obviate that by saying it's fine, because I don't think that there is any substantial unfair prejudice by having this video be used. However, Mr. Steel, I take it that you're not going to spend more than a minute or two on this video. It's a 20-second happy birthday clip. You're not going to be making this, like, the centerpiece of your cross-examination. This is a couple minutes of cross-examination, at best, right?
MR. STEEL: Agreed.
THE COURT: OK. DX 1750 will be admitted.
(Defendant's Exhibit DX 1750 received in evidence)
THE COURT: As for DX1748 and 1794. I don't have either of these exhibits. DX 1748 does someone have that and can put it up on the board, because the government says that this one is particularly prejudicial, but for reasons I can't tell because I haven't seen it. Ms. Smyser, do you want to point out the part of this that is particularly prejudicial in the government's view?
MS. SMYSER: Yes, your Honor. As you can see in the first few text messages, Mia is expressing some of her feelings. And this is the same time period that we were talking about at the end of the day on Friday.
THE COURT: After the shutting down of Revolt Films.
MS. SMYSER: Correct. Kristina responds with a number of text messages. And if you continue on to the next page, she accuses Mia of attacking her with all of these text messages, when Mia is expressing that she feels betrayed and back-stabbed, for example. So we think this is prejudicial in that way. In addition, it's cumulative given the evidence that the defense has already admitted on this topic on Friday.
THE COURT: All right. Does anyone from the defense want to address this? Do you need that those last texts here?
MR. STEEL: Good morning, your Honor. Good morning, everyone. Yes, your Honor. I would like the whole text chain to be admitted. I believe that the part that the prosecutor just said about Mia saying -- and it should be on page three of, excuse me, 1748, the first blue circle, the first line -- I'm being betrayed and back-stabbed. That goes to the essence of what we have here. She is saying his highs are high and his lows are low, and I don't say anything because the highs are highs. Here, it is around Christmas of 2016. She has noticed that she is no longer working, yet she doesn't say anything about what is the betrayal, what is a back-stab, anything about Mr. Combs. And I would like to use the entirety of the text. If the court is limiting part of the text, I would like you to consider allowing that part in.
THE COURT: Wait. Walk me through that again. You're saying she's talking about being betrayed and back-stabbed
MR. STEEL: Nothing about Mr. Combs. It's not about Mr. Combs. Why doesn't Mr. Combs call me. It's a friendly, to me, obviously, the witness --
THE COURT: Meaning you're saying that after Revolt Films had been shut down, at a point in time, she has a grievance that she's airing. That's how you're getting this in, in the first place, to show her state of mind. What she's not saying is, by the way, Mr. Combs did XYZ, all the horrible things that came out in the direct examination.
MR. STEEL: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that the emphasis?
MR. STEEL: Yes.
THE COURT: OK. DX 1748 and 1794 will be admitted.
(Defendant's Exhibits DX 1748 and DX 1794 received in evidence)
THE COURT: Now, as to DX 1799, what is this?
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, it appears to be a video that was turned over late last night of Mia taking some alcoholic shots, is what it appears to be, after the time that she was employed. It also appears to have taken place in Honduras, presumably when she was on vacation. We don't see any probative value in this video. And there is incredible prejudice with. It seems to be aimed at embarrassing this witness.
THE COURT: Does someone have it and can put it up on the screen.
MICHAEL FERRARA: Your Honor, may I be heard? Michael Ferrara. I represent the witness. I think some of the exhibits are being shown on this screen, as well. If this video is not being admitted, I ask it not be shown here. The whole gallery can see it. I want to protect my client.
THE COURT: Thank you for raising that point. If someone has a laptop, I can look at it on that. It doesn't need to be put up on the screen for everyone to see. This is only being shown to me. I see the attorneys are off. All right. 1799 is excluded for the reasons stated by the government in their submission.
MR. STEEL: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STEEL: I don't mean to belabor. I heard what you said.
THE COURT: You can make your record.
MR. STEEL: OK. It is my belief that the evidence will come out maybe later -- I don't think that Mia will agree -- that she was let go from the company for alcohol abuse, inappropriate alcohol use, something to that effect. So I think that this will assist in the jurors seeing what other people saw early when she worked, and that is my position. I heard what you said. I would like you to have that background as well.
THE COURT: All right. Understood. OK. Mr. Steel, having had the weekend to streamline and fortify your cross-examination, how much time do you envision that you have left?
MR. STEEL: So, your Honor, and it's me. I'm bad. I believe I'm going to go -- and I told the prosecutor this -- up to lunch. But I am terrible. I am just telling the court. I can't see it going into tomorrow. I don't believe I'm going all day, but I believe I'm going to take lunch, or shortly after lunch. If I'm shorter, I'm not trying to stop that either. I'm giving you my best belief.
THE COURT: All right. We're not going to have 30 more Instagram posts?
MR. STEEL: I can't say that, but whatever.
THE COURT: See what you can do. It's your examination. See what you can do to streamline things and keep this trial moving. That's helpful, though, in terms of understanding the timing. As to the objections relating to Mr. Piazza.
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, can I raise one thing on Mia before we move on?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. SMYSER: This morning, I got approximately 30 additional social media posts from the defense, which Mr. Steel informed me that he may use as impeachment material. I have just skimmed through them. I don't see any impeachment value in these posts, some of which occurred in 2023, some of which show Mia in a swimsuit, for example, which raises some of the concerns we had with similar photos of Ms. Ventura. And so we would ask that the defense be precluded from using these posts.
THE COURT: All right. We'll take it up as it comes up. I mean, this is why I asked the question, Mr. Steel, about the 30 other Instagram posts. Because, I take it, Ms. Smyser is saying that even if it wasn't totally cumulative, which the government's position is, it is cumulative to what the defense did for most of the day on Friday, there are separate concerns with these exhibits going in. They are long after the employment ended, and the relevance to the issues in this case is unclear. Even if the relevance was clear, the basis to say that this goes to any kind of impeachment is further unclear. So you'll have to make that showing as to each of these that you try to use because the government is going to stand up and object each time. You get that.
MR. STEEL: Understood.
THE COURT: All right. Now, as to the Piazza objections, what is the objection? Because this is all -- the whole reason, as I understand it, that Mr. Piazza is even testifying is because the defense plans to call Mr. McCourt. Because, in the defense's view, despite their initial view that the video was prejudicial and that each time the jury sees the video, it is adding to that prejudice, it is the defense's objective and their strategy to keep having the video shown to the jury through their own expert who is going to talk about the video and necessarily is going to show the video to the jury on or cross-examination. It's going to be shown even more times to the jury. Because of that, the government is calling Mr. Piazza who, again, is going to show the video to the jury and explaining the origin of how they got to the video clips that were shown to the jury. So if it's the defense's strategy to have the video shown to the jury 30 more times, 50 more times, then I'm not seeing what the objection really is to Mr. Piazza simply, having that be the defense's strategy and their objective in this case, for reasons that the defense is aware of. I mean, that is their strategy. It's their call to make. Then the government is simply responding and saying, Here is how we got to the exhibits that we're using, here is why they are fair and accurate representations of what occurred, and that's it. So what's the objection?
MS. GERAGOS: Your Honor, if I may take this, and I may have the assist from Mr. Agnifilo at some point, but I'll let you know. We have multiple objections. I think I would like to take the videos one by one. We object to using the government introducing 101 and 102. Those are Piazza's corrected cell phone videos. We discussed those specific videos with the government prior to Mr. Flores' testimony. They gave us the option, do you want to use the original cell phone videos or do you want to use Piazza's corrected. We did not want to use Piazza's corrected versions. We think there are multiple problems with those versions, and we would rather have the original fairly and accurate depiction of the cell phone videos, the iPhone videos, as they were depicted, rather than his corrected version, which we don't believe solves any of the problems that we have identified. We do not plan on crossing Mr. Piazza on the -- I think we have a few questions on what he found to be the general issues with an iPhone video that videos a screen, essentially.
THE COURT: Is Mr. McCourt going to raise any issue was GX 3B-101 or 3B-102?
MS. GERAGOS: No, no. Because we don't want them -- if they are admitted, we would have to call him to show issues.
THE COURT: No, 3B --
MS. GERAGOS: Sorry. 3B-101 and 3B-102. No. I mean, we think that Piazza is going to talk about what he views as the quick issues, couple questions, and that's it. You know, the problems with these videos are, you know, the problem when you use an iPhone to video a screen --
THE COURT: Why don't you -- here is what I would invite. Look, Mr. Steel has already told us his cross is going to take us until lunch. Here is something that I would just invite the defense to think about. Ms. Comey, I take it that if the defense were not going to call Mr. McCourt, then the government may not be calling Mr. Piazza, is that fair?
MS. COMEY: I think we would significantly shorten his testimony. I don't think we would not call him at all. He's done a bit of other work in the case as well.
THE COURT: Why do you need him? If the defense is not calling their witness who would challenge the video and the only thing you have is whatever cross has already happened on the video, why would you call Mr. Piazza?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I stood up because you said my name. Ms. Smyser is actually putting Mr. Piazza on.
THE COURT: Fair enough. I didn't know.
MS. GERAGOS: I don't want to interrupt. We did ask the government to call Piazza because they put in the videos through in the beginning. I don't want to put this on the government. We did say, I think, the first day for your Honor, we would ask that the government call Mr. Piazza. It will be a very short cross. That's what we said. And so I just want to make sure that your Honor knows that we asked for this, in order for them to put in 10C-103, 104, and 105. So that was a defense request, in order for those videos to come in. We admitted them not subject to connection, but we just want the jury really to have an understanding how we got here with these videos.
THE COURT: Then, yeah. So, given that, how can you object to that -- I mean, Mr. Piazza then is going to explain exactly what the defense wanted him to explain and he has a few exhibits that show that.
MS. GERAGOS: The whole point --
THE COURT: Why is it prejudicial? The only prejudice argument that I hear is perhaps with respect to GX 10C-113, which is apparently being used as a demonstrative, but it is a compilation video that focuses in on certain acts, and I don't think we need that. So I would be prepared to exclude that particular demonstrative from being used. But as to the others, I mean, these are just -- Piazza has to be able to explain what the defense wants him to explain, which is how did we get here? He's going to explain that using versions of the video has show the difference between what is in evidence and what the originals were and all of that.
MS. GERAGOS: OK. If your Honor would allow me, I would like to separate the kind of two issues. One are the cell phone videos and one are the CNN production videos. The cell phone videos, we have the originals in evidence. Why do we need to introduce different ones now. The jury has already seen the originals the first day of this trial through Mr. Flores. We don't need to introduce these different ones that he has, for lack of a better term, monkeyed with. There is no reason for it. It's prejudicial. We don't agree with how he did them. There's just no reason to do it. In terms of the cell phone videos, that's 101 and 102. In terms of the -- I think it's 106, 107, and 108, I want to say -- don't quote me on the exact numbers -- those show how we got those from CNN, the sped-up versions. The whole point of our motion in limine was we don't want the jury to see these sped-up versions. That was the whole reason that I understood that your Honor asked the government to have an expert slow them down and make them more accurate as to the speed of these. Why are we going to now admit a version of these videos that are extremely prejudicial for the jury?
THE COURT: Why is it?
MS. GERAGOS: That's what 106, 107 and 108 does. Because it still shows -- you still see on the left-hand side Mr. Combs running 30 percent faster than it is in reality. Looking at it, it's prejudicial for anybody looking at it to see Mr. Combs looking like that. And understood, that if the jury will understand, of course, that he slowed it down, but to have them have this in evidence when they take this back to the jury room and looking at it on the screen over and over again is prejudicial, unduly prejudicial, to him.
THE COURT: So let me just zoom out a little bit. You don't have a problem with Mr. Piazza talking about any of these things.
MS. GERAGOS: No.
THE COURT: You're just saying that your grievance is that, in talking about these things, he is also showing the versions of the video that you initially complained about. And so it kind of undermines everything that we went through with the CNN video to now show them those things and say, OK, well, here is how we got here from that.
MS. GERAGOS: That's right.
THE COURT: Mr. McCourt -- and the defense on cross-examination -- is not going to challenge those things. You're not going to say, well, you didn't actually slow things down, did you, anything along those lines?
MS. GERAGOS: Exactly.
THE COURT: You would open the door then to the government putting everything in.
MS. GERAGOS: That's right. If we were to do that, then we open the door on redirect. But we're not doing that. I expect our cross, as we told your Honor on day one of this trial --
THE COURT: What is your cross going to be, two minutes long?
MS. GERAGOS: Very short. I think Mr. Agnifilo said it would be something, like, ten minutes. I just want to go through, for example -- I'm previewing it so your Honor knows -- this is a motion-sensored camera. Here are all of the times that are not captured. That is our cross. And just depending on how much Ms. Smyser gets out on direct on all the things he did to correct it, we justs want the jury to know how we got here. And we let Ms. Smyser know that last night. How did we get here with these videos. It's important for us that the jury knows that. I think I told your Honor a couple weeks -- I frankly don't remember now when it was -- that the cross might be a little longer because we might show him the BX series of videos. We're not going to do that with him anymore. We will probably do that with a summary witness. Short cross. The point of calling him, the reason we asked the government to call him, just so the jury understands how we got here with these specific videos. Our cross is not going to impugn his methods in any way, but really, just so the jury understands how these videos came about.
THE COURT: So this is, just for my own curiosity, what are you going to do during the cross of Mr. McCourt when the government tries to show the videos to -- Because it would be fair for the government to show the videos to Mr. McCourt and show the jury the videos, to have Mr. McCourt, who's done an analysis on the videos, like, you know, and expresses the opinion that they are unreliable. The government is going to show the jury the video.
MS. GERAGOS: We --
THE COURT: So that's why I'm not understanding what we're actually doing here, because there was extensive discussions between the parties. There were only a couple versions of the videos that were put into evidence, so those versions are in. But now, because the defense is putting on this, kind of, satellite case about the videos, we have these disputes about other videos coming into evidence and the InterContinental video itself being repeatedly shown to the jury. And the defense says that's prejudicial, but the only reason any of this is happening is because the defense is calling Mr. McCourt and making this an issue. And the government, on cross of Mr. McCourt, you know, is likely going to be showing the jury the video, perhaps, multiple times because that is what Mr. McCourt is testifying about. That's why I'm raising this kind of larger issue.
MS. GERAGOS: Understood. We -- as your Honor knows, we noticed Mr. McCourt. We may call him. At this point, if 101 and 102 don't come in, we probably will not call him on our defense case.
THE COURT: Sorry. If the 101 --
MS. GERAGOS: If 10B-101 and 10B-102 do not come into evidence, we probably will not call him.
THE COURT: And C?
MS. GERAGOS: Sorry. I'm sorry, yes. 10C-101 and 10C-102, if those don't come in, we don't -- Give me one moment.
(Counsel confer)
MS. GERAGOS: We agree with Mr. Piazza's methods of how he, kind of, slowed it down. So unless this goes in a different direction that we were not anticipating, putting aside 101 and 102 which we vehemently disagree with, we are probably not going to call Mr. McCourt. 101 and 102, we really believe, were just, like, out of this case starting on day one, so we -- But that would be the reason to call him if we did.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Smyser, I suppose there is an implicit offer on the table. If you didn't use 101 and 102, then you could lose maybe half a day on this case with not having Mr. McCourt testify. Let me hear you on 101 and 102. I take it that's the principal objection on this.
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, I think this entirely depends on what the defense is going to do here. I don't hear from them that they are going to certainly commit to not calling Mr. McCourt, if 101 and 102 don't come in. In addition, I don't hear that they are not going to challenge the reliability or the fact that the original cell phone videos are fair and accurate in their cross-examination of Mr. Piazza or in arguments to the jury. That is why we need 101 and 102. So if the defense commits to all of those things, I think the government can have a discussion about whether to forego admitting them. But I don't want to hamstring us based on half-hearted representations from the defense right now about what they are going to do by not putting in these videos.
THE COURT: Why put them in, in the first place? Like, why wouldn't it run afoul of Rule 403? Prior to trial, we had these elaborate discussions about what would go in. And what the defense was concerned about was precisely these two videos, among other things, that had, in their view, kind of, were sped up naturally, not because of anybody's manipulation, but because of the way the videos were kind of taken.
MS. SMYSER: I think we're talking about two different things here, your Honor. The 101 and 102 objection is to the cell phone videos. Those don't have a speed issue. The only videos that are in evidence that have the, quote-unquote, speed issue are the surveillance videos. All we admitted related to those are the slowed-down versions. But the cell phone videos themselves also have certain, quote-unquote, issues with them, such as the aspect ratio, which the defense has said makes the defendant appear more domineering or wider. It's shaky. It's different lighting. If they are going to focus on those issue, making the cell phone video not a fair and accurate representation, we should be able to put in the version of the video that corrects those issues.
THE COURT: Understood. So why wouldn't you just do that either on redirect, if they do it on cross or if they attempt to do it with Mr. McCourt, then you can just interject into the defense case, you can recall Mr. Piazza, and I would allow you to do that right after Mr. McCourt's testimony to then put in all this evidence. And isn't that the best way to make sure that the defense understands, if they open the door, you're going to walk through it?
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, I think that's a waste of time. Like, we have Mr. Piazza here today. We have him prepared to put in the videos. We also don't want to make it seem like we're hiding something from the jury here. I think if the defense is really prepared to commit to not calling Mr. McCourt and not making arguments as to the reliability of the cell phone videos, then I would like to confer with my team before I make a final decision on 101 and 102. We may very well be willing to not put those in. We need a commitment on that, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask the defense, during the morning, to really come up with a firm position here. I think what is going to happen is, even if I were to exclude these, you're going to have to watch yourself on cross, and then you could face the government putting in these videos on redirect examination. But then if you have Mr. McCourt testify and if he runs afoul of some of these guardrails, then as I told the government, I would just allow them to put Mr. Piazza in during the defense case to address those issues and potentially put in those videos, which for the reasons the defense has indicated it does not want. So take the morning session, figure out if there is a firm position that you can tell the government about. Maybe we can narrow some of these disputes, and then I'll address it if there is still open issues during the lunch break.
MS. GERAGOS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Ms. Comey, do we have Mr. Garcia here?
MS. STEINER: He's here, your Honor.
THE COURT: Steiner. All right.
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, before he is brought in, before you make a final decision on the compilations 112 and 113, I would like to be heard whether that is current right now or whether that is at lunch.
THE COURT: 112 and 113, do you have these and can you e-mail them to me?
MS. SMYSER: They were presented to chambers via USAfx. They are too big to e-mail, unfortunately.
THE COURT: Then we have them. So, thank you, I'll take a look. Let me hear you just briefly on those two compilations, and that will complete the record here.
MS. SMYSER: Just briefly, your Honor, 112 is simply a timeline of events essentially that strings together the various videos that are in evidence to show the jury in one video what happens. Currently that compilation uses the corrected cell phone video. If your Honor were to preclude that corrected video, Mr. Piazza could sub in the original cell phone video, but -- that would be very helpful, I think, to the jury in showing what happened here in order. And I don't think the defense expresses any real prejudice that raised the 403 objection as to an issue with that compilation. And it's highly probative, as I said. I think it would be very helpful to the jury and it shows the events in order. 113, your Honor, is essentially the same thing. It also shows those events in order. But Mr. Piazza has done certain enhancements and edits to that video, including zooming in and highlighting certain acts on the video. I know your Honor noted that this may be cumulative. We may have shown this video before. But, your Honor, this is one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case, and the government should be able to highlight the relevant portions to the jury. To zoom in, for example, on things that happen in the mirror in the back of the video that are difficult to see, to give the jury a full picture of what was going on in this video. And that is what 113 does. And as the government has said, we are only intending to use it as a demonstrative during Mr. Piazza's testimony, and so I don't think there is any real prejudice here, and I think it would be extremely probative for the jury.
THE COURT: Understood. Ms. Geragos, what is the objection as to 112, which is not with the circles and arrows, but just the pieced-together video? Especially if it doesn't utilize the corrected cell phone videos, but instead, the ones that are in evidence
MS. GERAGOS: Yes. The originals are in evidence, your Honor. We think that the government should just use videos and not the pieced-together compilation version, which is not original. It's something made by an expert with different timestamps, and I think we would point this out on cross if this comes in. We think the government, if it wants to piece together what is actually in evidence and use it during the summation, to have this be something that comes into evidence and goes back with the jury in the jury room, that is something that we think is extremely prejudicial. I don't think we would have an objection, let me just check...
(Counsel confer)
MS. GERAGOS: We would not have an objection to using 112 as a demonstrative with Mr. Piazza. But we do have an objection to it being admitted and going back into the jury room.
(Counsel confer)
MS. GERAGOS: Yes, of course. If the original of the cell phone videos are replaced at the end or at what portion that he utilizes the cell phone videos, we do have an issue. When you see 113, I think you'll see why, with even using 113 as a demonstrative, because of the red circles and zooming in. But we would not have an issue with 112 as a demonstrative, but we do have an issue with it being a substantive exhibit.
THE COURT: And, Ms. Smyser, as to 112, I guess -- now that I'm thinking about it -- is it a proper exhibit at all? You're hearing no objection to using it as a demonstrative. How would it be admissible as a substantive exhibit? Because you have the cell phone videos. They are what they are. To the extent Mr. Piazza pieced together these videos in a particular sequence and put them together, even if it's reliable, why would that be an exhibit as opposed to an illustrative aid you can use during your examination, which there is no objection to?
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, it's piecing together items that are in evidence. I think that it itself can -- there is no bar for a compilation to not come in as substantive evidence. And I think if it is not accepted as substantive evidence, it's simply going to make it more difficult for the jury during their deliberations, more unwieldy, having to open more files so see what went on. Rather than to have Mr. Piazza testify about what he did in order to make this compilation and then have it admitted as substantive evidence. Your Honor, I would point out, that this video goes to the heart of the issue in Count Two. So whether there was force or coercion used in relation to sex trafficking, so it's an extremely important point of -- piece of evidence that is very probative. And we want the jury to be able to understand the full sequence of events here, which is what 112 does.
THE COURT: All right. Now, I think you've already done a lot of that during Ms. Ventura's testimony and the testimony of a couple of the witnesses who testified in the first week of trial. All right. So here is what we're going to do. 10C-101 and 10C-102, and 10C-106 through 10C-111 are excluded, pending a door opening by the defense. 112 can be used as a demonstrative during the testimony. 113 is out. Now, with that, let's have Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia, you may take the stand.
COURT CLERK: Please remain standing for a moment and raise your right hand. EDDY GARCIA, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: Thank you. You may be seated. Sir, can I just ask you to give your first and last name to the court.
EDDY GARCIA: Eddy Garcia.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Steiner, you may proceed.
MS. STEINER: Thank you, your Honor.