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 3, 2025 8:45 a.m. Before: HON. ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, District Judge -and a Jury- APPEARANCES JAY CLAYTON Interim 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- HARRIS TRZASKOMA LLP 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 Shannon Becker Paralegal Specialists Raymond McLeod, Paralegal
(Trial resumed; jury not present)
THE COURT: Let's start with GX 10C-114. Yesterday, I asked the government how does this get into evidence, and in response I received this letter, which just cites to a bunch of cases. But let's try to work this out and figure out if the government can get this into evidence. As I understand it, the starting place would be Rule 1002, which says an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise. So that's the default rule that, under normal circumstances, you would have the original. We don't have the original here as we addressed previously. So under Rule 1004, an original is not required and other evidence of the content of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if... and there are various provisions, which the Court has previously held apply in this circumstance. So given that, Ms. Johnson, I take it that the government's submission is the original in this context was not snippets of video taken out of context, but instead the original would have been the uninterrupted surveillance video, which would have gone from time 1 to time 2, and for that reason, under Rule 1004, the properly admissible other evidence would be the compilation of the videos showing the sequence, which approximates the original, which the government does not have anymore; is that all true?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor, that's true. And I think that's true in this case. In some other cases, there are some different bases for admitting videos of this sort, but I agree with your analysis here.
THE COURT: In this case, that's the most straightforward way to explain why this would be admissible under the rules, and then the only, I suppose, missing link would be some evidence under Rule 1004, preponderance of the evidence to just explain that the original would have been an uninterrupted cut. Let me ask you, is Mr. Garcia competent to address that question, given his role in working in the security department?
MS. JOHNSON: I defer to Ms. Steiner on that issue.
MS. STEINER: Your Honor, I had not intended to inquire of this witness about that. He has knowledge generally of where the video surveillance was located and when it was running. I'm not sure whether he had knowledge about the continuous nature.
THE COURT: You can ask him about that?
MS. STEINER: Yes.
THE COURT: I'm not saying it's necessary to meet the government's burden under the preponderance standard because I think we've had some testimony about this and I'm not sure it's really disputed that if the original surveillance cut had been pulled, it's not just five seconds of video out of order, it's you get the cut of whatever time period you're looking at and you pull it off. And there might be testimony already in the record about that. But I think that's the most straightforward way to get that into evidence. And given the adjustments we've already made, that we're not using the corrected cellphone video, there wouldn't be a 403 problem since we're talking about videos that are in evidence as to which the parties have had discussions and we're just sequencing them in the way that would be other evidence of what the original would have showed if it existed. So I think the sequence here is to have Mr. Garcia testify and then you can make an application to admit this exhibit and then I'll consider it at that juncture. Of course I'll hear Ms. Geragos, from you, in response.
MS. GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor. I just want to address what you said this morning. I think you stated, if I have it right, that the original would have been the uninterrupted surveillance video, which would have gone from time 1 to time 2, and maybe I'm not understanding this properly, but the original surveillance footage would not have been cut the way that it's cut in the compilation video in 114. 114 combines the corrected surveillance footage in a way that does not mirror what the original would have been --
THE COURT: In what way? Can you help me out with that.
MS. GERAGOS: Yes, because if you have it in front of you, and maybe we can pull it up, it's taking it from several different camera angles. So the original video footage would have had the several different camera angles we have now, it just would have been slower in the way that it has been corrected. So it would not have shown this kind of, you know, from the hallway, then from the elevator bank, then from the other side of the hallway, then from this part of the hallway. It would not have been in the way that it is currently presented in 114. And the additional problems with 114 is that it doesn't --
THE COURT: You're not disputing that it is in chronological order, right?
MS. GERAGOS: I guess I'm not disputing it, but I think what your Honor will see from Piazza's testimony is that the hallway footage has different timestamps than the elevator footage. So the hallway footage looking at where I guess Mr. Combs's room would have been is at a different timestamp than the elevator bank footage. And so we can guess and assume that it is in chronological order, but just based on the timestamps themselves, they're not in chronological order in terms of what the timestamp is. And so it's misleading.
THE COURT: In what way is it misleading?
MS. GERAGOS: Because of the timestamps. And so it's misleading --
THE COURT: I asked you if you you're disputing that it's in chronological order and you said, I guess I'm not disputing it.
MS. GERAGOS: The cameras are on two separate systems. I think that's what Mr. Flores testified to. And so I suppose it's -- it might be in chronological order, but then we don't know how many minutes are actually missing. And so it will leave the jury with the misimpression that this is all happening very quickly, when it's actually not, because of the timestamps, and all of the footage that's missing because of the motion sensor. It's just a misleading video and there's no reason for it to be admitted. We have no issue with it being a demonstrative. But the time, the chronology here is not what's at issue. And so I don't understand the case that the government cited to. I'm blanking on the name at the moment. It seemed like the chronology of the videos were the issue at the trial. And so that's why the compilation was admitted into evidence. Here, that's not the issue at the trial. And so --
THE COURT: The way the compilation -- now you viewed this exhibit, Ms. Geragos?
MS. GERAGOS: I haven't viewed the updated, but --
THE COURT: Do we have the exhibit?
MS. GERAGOS: I believe. We can play it right now. If your Honor sees here, this is what I'm talking about in terms of these videos, the hallway footage looking at what would have been Mr. Combs's and Ms. Ventura's room, that footage starts at 11:16. It's a different timestamp because it's on a different system of the other footage, which you'll see right now, and that's at 11:10. We assume, right, but we don't know for certain, I suppose, that it's at the same time. Then it shows her coming out. That's at 11:10. So those two systems have it at 11:10. The other hallway footage, as you see, has it at 11:16 multiple seconds later, but you don't know that with the compilation because you don't see that -- if you could just pause it really quickly. You don't see the time period in between those, you know, how long she is in the elevator bank before Mr. Combs comes running. That is itself, what we just watched, is unduly prejudicial. It makes it seem like he's coming immediately right after her — if you could pause it — when that's not the case.
THE COURT: So, first of all, let me ask you a question. So Mr. Piazza, is he going to engage with this exhibit? Right now it's in as a demonstrative to be used. Is he going to explain what's going on here, like the different vantage points and the different videos that were used, is that part of his testimony or no?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, that is part of his testimony. At a convenient time, I would like to address Ms. Geragos's point about the timestamps, but I defer to your Honor's questions for now.
THE COURT: Is he going to explain the timestamps?
MS. JOHNSON: I don't know what he can say about the timestamps. I defer to Ms. Smyser on that. But I will say that timestamps on surveillance video are routinely inaccurate. This is not a surprise.
THE COURT: I was asking a slightly different question. You have different cameras that have timestamps that may not accurately reflect the time, but within each camera, the timestamp is running. So you can tell, when you're using a particular view of the camera, what happened in what sequence and how quickly it happened after the last take from that camera, right?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, that is absolutely correct. In this system, I believe Officer Flores already testified that it is one system with multiple cameras and the timestamps for each camera are consistent.
THE COURT: You just want this to be in evidence because this is the proper sequence of events. You're not trying to exaggerate the proximity of different views or anything like that?
MS. JOHNSON: That's absolutely correct. We think it is incredibly helpful to the jury to put the sequence in correct order and I don't hear there's any reasonable dispute that this is not the correct sequence.
THE COURT: Why don't you, just in between each cut, put in a few seconds of black screen so that the concern that Ms. Geragos has concerning things happening right after each other that may not have happened right after each other is not presented, but you'll have the sequence so that if the jury wants to see the chronological sequence of events, then they can look for this exhibit as opposed to the government having to send back 20 different exhibits.
MS. JOHNSON: Just to be clear with your Honor's suggestion, is that just sort of when there's a jump in time, because some of the angle, like some of the timestamps are continuous. So, for example, we switch angles and there's a different timestamp, your Honor would be suggesting to put a black screen there?
THE COURT: I think that's right, if I'm understanding you. But Ms. Geragos, you're standing up.
MS. GERAGOS: Sorry. I don't want to interrupt her.
THE COURT: This is the kind of thing the parties can work out under that framework because I'm not hearing a dispute that the chronology is wrong, I'm hearing now that the dispute is that because of some of the jumping timestamps, you can't string them together with no break between different cuts, there needs to be at least some break.
MS. JOHNSON: Just as a practical matter, Mr. Piazza could not practically do that this morning and also testify.
THE COURT: Practically do what?
MS. JOHNSON: Practically insert the screens your Honor suggests.
THE COURT: That's okay because the underlying exhibits are already in evidence, right?
MS. JOHNSON: They are, but we would need to put this compilation in through him as the person who created this compilation.
THE COURT: He created it?
MS. JOHNSON: Correct.
THE COURT: But he could put it in and then it would be subject to the introduction of the black space, right? What would be the problem with that?
MS. JOHNSON: May I just confer with Ms. Smyser, who is putting on Mr. Piazza.
MS. SMYSER: Sorry for jumping around here, your Honor, but I may be able to more easily address these technical questions. I think, first of all, technically, we would need to introduce this with Mr. Piazza and I with would want him to explain why those black screens exist while he is on the stand. He is prepared to testify right after Mr. Garcia, so making those corrections practically is impossible. I also don't think that they're necessary here. It doesn't seem like Ms. Geragos is raising a real issue with the sequence of events, and how Mr. Piazza has strung this together is not to do so in a misleading way. He has strung together the video footage that exists, and then at certain points when different angles show the same thing, he has inserted those different angles in, but he is not shortening the footage that exists from the continuous sequence of events here. I really don't think that there is some misimpression created by the compilation, that there's skipping in the video. There are certain times when the timestamp does skip because of the motion sensor camera, but Mr. Piazza is going to explain that while he's on the stand. It's not him who is taking things out of the video, that's just simply the video that exists because the camera --
THE COURT: You're saying that at no point in this video is there a clip that is shown as happening right after the last clip, but in fact did not happen right after that last clip?
MS. SMYSER: Not to my knowledge, your Honor. If the defense is seeing something different, I would love to know, but that's not my understanding as to what is happening in this video.
THE COURT: So you're going to explore that with Mr. Piazza, you're going to go through this with him?
MS. SMYSER: Yes.
THE COURT: And the defense can cross examine him on those same issues?
MS. SMYSER: Of course.
THE COURT: And there would be no issue on offering this into evidence on his redirect examination because I said that it could be used as a demonstrative, so you can use it with him as a demonstrative, we could get the full record based on the direct and the cross, and then you could put it in on redirect if there's a sufficient basis to put it in. Is there any reason not to do it that way? Because right now, if we do it on your direct, to the extent the defense has some issue they want to raise on cross and they can only do it by asking Mr. Piazza exactly what he did, then we'd have to wait until the cross, unless you wanted him to be able to -- I mean, if you want to on this phase of the direct allow the defense to interrupt your direct to ask those questions, I'm happy to allow that, as well. But it seems just easier for you to, on redirect, say, you remember we talked about this video and address anything that came up in the cross, and then offer into evidence at that point.
MS. SMYSER: Sure, your Honor, we're happy to do it that way. If the defense doesn't raise any issues with the sequence of events or the compilation, I would still ask permission to offer it.
THE COURT: Maybe you don't have any redirect and you just get up and offer it into evidence.
MS. SMYSER: Understood. Thank you.
THE COURT: Let's handle that that way. Next issue is GX A-905-A. Let me hear from the defense. The government has raised multiple bases to admit this exhibit under the hearsay rules. If it's not hearsay or if it fits into an exception to the hearsay rules, then their point is that, yes, this exhibit may be prejudicial, but it's not unfairly prejudicial because it is highly probative. To the extent it is prejudicial, it's only because it is highly probative. So, really, from the defense's perspective, it seems like you need to make a good argument for why this either isn't hearsay or it is hearsay and it does not fall into any exception.
MS. GERAGOS: Could you give us one moment, please?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. GERAGOS: Thank you.
(Pause)
MS. GERAGOS: Our argument, I believe, is that it is hearsay. I think there are multiple issues with this document.
THE COURT: First, you don't dispute that Mr. Combs's statements would be admissible, correct?
MS. GERAGOS: No, I don't dispute that, your Honor. Has this been revised? I'm looking at page 4 --
THE COURT: I hope I have the right one.
MS. FOSTER: Your Honor, the only part of this that was revised, and we did this in order to potentially resolve any issues, was we just redacted some of the personal conversations that involved some of the personal --
THE COURT: I saw that. I was going to ask you about that.
MS. GERAGOS: Yes. So that was one of my biggest concerns was, Ms. Johnson and I had actually, during Ms. Ventura's testimony, kept a lot of that out with respect to this specific individual.
THE COURT: Ms. Geragos do you want to take a minute or two?
MS. GERAGOS: Yes. Thank you.
(Pause)
MS. GERAGOS: Your Honor, to streamline things, would you mind if we took this up at the break or is this something that needs to come in before Mr. Garcia, if I could just review the revised one and we just address it at the break, that way this can be streamlined and not waste any more time.
THE COURT: Ms. Foster.
MS. FOSTER: That's fine.
THE COURT: So with that, any further issues to address before we bring the jury out?
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, there's just one thing that I wanted to flag for the Court. To be clear, this is not something that needs to be resolved immediately. I just wanted to flag for the Court and for defense that after the cross-examination of Mia, which, over the course of two days, involved a very significant amount of time reviewing social media posts and inferring that Mia must be lying about the assaults she endured if she posted celebratory birthday messages for the defendant. Given that extensive line of cross-examination, the government is considering offering excerpts from the defendant's recorded jail calls. Your Honor might remember that this came up to a certain extent in November of last year in which the defendant has extensive discussion about planning a social media campaign around his birthday. We would propose offering certain excerpts of those calls. Our plan is to mark and produce those excerpts this evening to defense counsel and --
THE COURT: What's the basis for admission?
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, these are the defendant's statements.
THE COURT: Understand.
MS. SLAVIK: And they're relevant because we would be offering these calls both to corroborate Mia's testimony and --
THE COURT: On what issue?
MS. SLAVIK: On the fact that Mia felt compelled to post these birthday messages, that she would be in trouble if she didn't. And also to rebut the really inescapable inference that the defense was asking the jury to draw, that she must be lying about the assaults because she posted these birthday messages. I think the messages the government plans to excerpt will show that the defendant views his birthday and social media around his birthday as a marketing opportunity, as an opportunity to change the narrative, as an opportunity to shape public perception and to generate publicity about both him and his businesses, and for those reasons, we think the jail calls are both admissible and probative here. We'll explain further in a letter to the Court. There's nothing that we're asking you to do now. I'm just flagging this issue for the Court.
THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.
MS. JOHNSON: Sorry, your Honor. One additional issue we just wanted to put on the Court's radar. The government has become aware of an individual who has broken the Court's pseudonym order with respect to Mia. That individual was present in the courtroom yesterday and the government saw that individual outside of the courtroom at the end of the court day, broadcasting her name in a public square right outside the courthouse. We don't see that individual here today, but if we do, we plan to alert the CSOs and the Court and would ask that she would be excluded.
THE COURT: In terms of the individual, I take it that you don't have a name, you just have seen -- there was an observation of this person?
MS. JOHNSON: Right, we do not have his name. We have seen his YouTube channel in which he says Mia's true name, and we saw that same individual in the courtroom yesterday, and we saw him in Foley Square after court had let out for the day yesterday, appearing to be broadcasting and stating her true name into his phone. So if we see that individual again today either in this courtroom or in the courthouse, we would alert the Court and the CSOs.
THE COURT: You can do this in an email, that's fine, copy the defense, submit that to the Court that way we can provide notification to the court security and the marshals and they can be on the lookout now so if this person reenters the courtroom, especially that we have another witness testifying under a pseudonym, we can be ready for that kind of thing happening. And I'll give another instruction when we get to that point just so everyone is again aware of this.
MS. JOHNSON: Of course. We appreciate that, your Honor.
THE COURT: The separate issue, and I'll check on this, is to make sure in the overflow room the same instructions and oversight is being provided. I just want to make sure that that's happening, and I'll do that on my end.
MS. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Anything else from the government?
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, there's one final issue related to Mr. Piazza, and the government and the defense have been in discussions about the cellphone videos. And so we just wanted to put a few things on the record for your Honor. So we understand the Court's ruling yesterday that the government in the first instance was not going to introduce the corrected cellphone videos. I understand that the defense would like to have brought out kind of what happens when you have a cellphone video taken of another video. So I'm intending to ask Mr. Piazza that question on his direct examination. I expect he will say that there is some distortion when that occurs, there's some issue with the aspect ratio. I understand from the defense that they don't intend to make any bigger issue of that on cross-examination, and they don't intend in their closing argument to make any argument that the original cellphone videos, which are in evidence, aren't accurate or aren't a reliable representation of what happened because of those issues. And they also — correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Geragos — wouldn't then call Mr. McCourt. And so, given all of those parameters, the government wouldn't seek to introduce the corrected cellphone videos. But if the defense goes into any more detail on cross-examination, then we would. But we wanted to put this on the record because it involves potential arguments in summation and a concession the government would be making by not seeking to introduce the corrected cellphone videos again. So Ms. Geragos, please correct me if I've gotten anything wrong about our discussions.
MS. GERAGOS: That's right, your Honor. We just want to put that on the record so that you know and that you feel comfortable, the government feels comfortable. We just want to elicit it if the government asks it on direct, we're not going to cross examine on that point at all, and then we will not be making the argument in summation that there's distortion or he looks more domineering, the aspect ratio is off. We really just want the jury to understand, as I said yesterday, how we got here. And the government intends to now bring this out after our discussions and our conferrals on direct examination, so we will not bring it up on cross. So I just want to make that commitment to your Honor, and then we are not going to argue about it at summation. But I do want to make it clear, we may call Mr. McCourt in terms of if we need to enhance any audio or video from other aspects of this case. So I don't want to tell you right now we are not calling him at all — we might. It's just in terms of this issue we are not going, unless Piazza -- and Mr. Agnifilo would like to --
MR. AGNIFILO: It's a separate issue, so I don't think we have the two-lawyer-on-one issue.
THE COURT: It's a loophole.
MR. AGNIFILO: One of the things I suppose could happen is if your Honor let in the compilation video as a piece of evidence, our issue with it is that it's not faithful to the actual amount of time passing from beginning to end. And so what I could see doing, if that was a piece of evidence, is having Mr. McCourt, and he's already done this quite frankly, kind of fill in the blank spots and sort of say the camera here, 20 seconds passes and, you know, 20 seconds passes because of the timestamp, but 20 seconds doesn't pass in like stopwatch time if you're watching the video. So as I was hearing your Honor sort of try to figure out a way to handle this, I think there are a lot of ways to handle this, and I really don't think this is a tremendous issue of dispute. I think both sides agree that while the video that's being proposed — and that we agree could be a demonstrative — is accurate in terms of then this happened, then this happened, then this happened, then this happened, it's not accurate in terms of the amount of time passing between all those things that happened.
THE COURT: That has become clear this morning. And so the time on the video said 10 minutes and 58 seconds. Do you know, just offhand, what the actual duration of time is? You told me that it was actually like 40 minutes. That would be a pretty strong Rule 403 argument.
MR. AGNIFILO: It's not that long, it's not quite that long. What I did a few months ago is I actually sat there with my iPhone as a stopwatch and compared it, but I don't have those notes in front of me. I think this is a relatively easy fix. I think the thing working against us is Mr. Piazza is going to be on the stand in two hours. In the meantime, I'm going to be talking with my colleagues to see if there's a way to make this be easier on everybody.
THE COURT: Where does Mr. Piazza reside? I mean, is he in New York?
MS. SMYSER: No, he's in Florida.
THE COURT: Understood.
MR. AGNIFILO: We'll keep talking.
THE COURT: Anything, Ms. Steiner?
MS. STEINER: Yes, your Honor. I wanted to flag with the Court, there was an issue with Mr. Garcia's anticipated testimony that we actually included in our letter from June 1. I don't believe it was addressed by the Court yesterday. This is with respect to statements that I expect Mr. Garcia will testify about from his direct supervisor at the hotel. I understood when I conferred with the defense that they intended to raise hearsay objections. As we noted in our submission, many of these statements are directives and therefore non-hearsay on that basis. Even when they're not directives, we would be introducing them not for their truth, but to establish their effect on the listener. Given, again, that this is his direct supervisor, he's acting at his direction and he's going to testify about actions he took in the immediate aftermath of those conversations.
THE COURT: Just give me one second.
MS. STEINER: And this is on page --
THE COURT: I have it here. Thank you. Understood. Does the defense have a response?
MR. STEEL: Good morning, your Honor. I don't know if you see the conversation that we're talking about, if you have it in front of you, the exhibit. But I just believe that it is hearsay, it is not. I thought the government was saying that it's agency exception, an agent, an employee --
THE COURT: No, they're saying two things. One, they're saying that they are commands or directives. And so under the case that we previously discussed, the Bellomo case from the Second Circuit, those are not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted and are not hearsay. And second, they say that the communications between Mr. Garcia and Mr. Medrano are not for their truth, but rather their effect on the listener and Mr. Garcia, because then he testifies that he did certain things based on having these conversations with Mr. Medrano. So there are two bases they say overcome the hearsay rule.
MR. STEEL: My position is contrary. I do not believe that these are just directives, these are communications about what to do and how to accumulate the money and the requests for money from Mr. Combs to give him the final copy of the video, one; and two, we don't need Mr. Medrano's statements to explain the conduct. The witness, Mr. Garcia, is here. He can say, this is what I did. So I don't think we need background, I did this because of being directed to do it. That would be my --
THE COURT: That being the case, what's the prejudice?
MR. STEEL: Your Honor, it's just unnecessary --
THE COURT: The record should reflect a pause in response. Because if I'm hearing you, you're saying what's the point of having these back-channel communications in, but then that could be easily flipped around and say what's the prejudice if the government has offered two independent bases for admission and ways in which this would overcome the hearsay rule. Now, I haven't heard the testimony, so I only have these representations of what Mr. Garcia is going to testify to. It's going to depend on what the nature of the testimony is. Ms. Steiner, you're putting Mr. Garcia on?
MS. STEINER: Yes, I am, your Honor.
THE COURT: It's your understanding that what Mr. Garcia is going to say is going to fit into one of these two things, is he's going to testify he had orders from Mr. Medrano, and if that's it, then that's going to fit under Bellomo, and otherwise, he's not going to say, Mr. Medrano said this was happening and this was why we were doing it. He's not going to say any of that stuff. He's just going to say, yeah, go do this, go do this.
MS. STEINER: That's right.
THE COURT: And tell us the story of what Mr. Garcia was then going to do.
MS. STEINER: Exactly, your Honor. So, for example, he would say, Mr. Medrano told me X, I conveyed that message immediately thereafter to Mr. Combs.
THE COURT: Understood. On that basis, you can proceed. If there are objections, Mr. Steel, if it doesn't go that way, then you'll raise objections at the appropriate time.
MR. STEEL: My understanding is I preserved it, but I'm going to make contemporaneous objections your Honor.
THE COURT: Good. Anything further, Ms. Steiner?
MS. STEINER: No. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything from the defense before we bring in our jury?
MR. AGNIFILO: Nothing from us. Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Let's get our jury. One last one.
MS. GERAGOS: I'm sorry. I'm not doing Mr. Garcia, but I am conferring with Ms. Comey on Jane exhibits. And so I would like to be able to leave the courtroom to make sure that gets done so if there are any issues, we can address it at the end of the day.
THE COURT: Of course.
MS. GERAGOS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Let's get our jury.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Welcome back, members of the jury. Before we get started, just a few adjustments to our schedule looking forward that I'd like you to just note down to accommodate some matters in this case. First, on this Thursday, June 5th, we're going to have a late start. We're going to start at 11:00 a.m., give you a little extra time in the morning, and we're going to go to 4:00 p.m., just a little bit later. So that's June 5th. On June 11th, we're going to not be here in the morning. We're going to start at 1:00 p.m. and then go to 5:00 p.m. So we'll have a half day, give you some extra time in the morning and go a little bit later in the afternoon. On June 20th, so this is after the Juneteenth holiday, we'll be back, we'll start at 9:00 a.m. as usual and we'll go to 1:00 p.m. to accommodate some scheduling issues that have come up. So you'll have a short day. It's a Friday, though, so that should be good news for everyone. With that, the government may call its next witness.
MS. STEINER: Your Honor, the government calls Eddy Garcia. EDDY GARCIA, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Mr. Garcia can you give the Court your first and last name and spell your first and last name into that microphone, please.
EDDY GARCIA: Eddy Garcia, E-D-D-Y G-A-R-C-I-A.
THE COURT: Ms. Steiner, you may proceed.
MS. STEINER: Thank you, your Honor.