THE COURT: So the application to admit the exhibit that we've been discussing is denied and 802(d)(1)(B) grounds. As Ms. Comey notes, there is not a case that has been cited by the defense that addresses the particular situation of different motives to fabricate testimony or shade testimony. However, it is also true that the government has not raised any authority suggesting that where there are separate motives, a statement that arises after one alleged motive would be admissible if it is prior to the second alleged motive. As the Court had previously noted, the Second Circuit in the Forrester case has language that certainly suggests that the inquiry is focused on whether there is an alleged motive to fabricate. And later in United States v. Al Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 167 (2d Cir. 2008), the Court repeated the language from Forrester and states that the statement must have been made before the declarant developed an alleged motive to fabricate, citing back to the Forrester case. And the Court further stated that a prior consistent statement made after an improper motive exists is simply not within the scope of rule 801(d)(1)(B), and the Court in that case actually vacated convictions at issue where handwritten notes that had arisen after a motive to falsify arose were admitted. So on those grounds, the Court will deny the application to admit the statement in question. With that, let's have Jane back, and we'll proceed with redirect examination.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Please be seated. Ms. Comey, you may proceed when ready.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Good afternoon, Jane.
MS. COMEY: I'd like to start by looking at a few text messages that Ms. Geragos showed you on cross-examination. Ms. Becker, would you please up A-104-30, pages 7 and 8. Can you zoom in on the bottom two texts on the left.
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember looking at these texts you sent to Sean during cross-examination?
MS. COMEY: Can you read us what you wrote here, please?
MS. COMEY: What were you referring to?
MS. COMEY: And then what did you say in the next text?
MS. COMEY: Why did you say I don't want to make you mad?
MS. COMEY: Why did you think that would make him agitated or upset?
JANE: Because typically, that's usually the response that I get from him when I declined those things.
MS. COMEY: And how did Sean respond?
MS. COMEY: Can we zoom in on that message.
MS. COMEY: What's the date and time of that message?
MS. COMEY: Can we now please pull up what's in evidence as Government Exhibit G-101, pages 6 and 7. And can we zoom in on the blue text on the right side at the top, please. On the right side, please.
MS. COMEY: Jane, is this the same date as the texts we were just looking at?
MS. COMEY: And is this just about an hour and a half later?
MS. COMEY: And does this appear to be a text from Sean to Paul?
MS. COMEY: Could you read what Sean texted Paul about an hour and a half after the messages we just looked at?
JANE: He said: I'm going to need you to persuade her. Call me in five minutes, and tell her we've been holding it since last week. If she hears from you, we in.
MS. COMEY: Before this very moment, did you know that Sean had sent this text to Paul saying I'm going to need you to persuade her?
MS. COMEY: We can take that down. Thank you.
MS. COMEY: Jane, how often in your relationship did Sean push you to have a hotel night after you told him or indicated to him that you did not want one?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember being asked on cross-examination about the loving messages that you sent to Sean after the trip you took in March of 2023 to Turks and Miami?
MS. COMEY: Before you went on that trip, what did you expect it would be?
MS. COMEY: What did the trip end up being?
MS. COMEY: During that trip, did you send texts to Paul expressing frustration with how it turned out?
MS. COMEY: Can we pull up what's in evidence, please, as Government Exhibit G-103, pages 75 and 76.
MS. COMEY: Jane, are these texts that you exchanged with Paul during that Turks trip?
MS. COMEY: Can we zoom in on the bottom two texts on the left, please.
MS. COMEY: Jane, what's the date of these?
MS. COMEY: Is this when you were in Turks?
MS. COMEY: Would you read what you wrote, please?
JANE: I said: Thanks again for coming over last night. It had been 24 hours with no breaks for me and at first I was going with the flow for the second linkup, but I had warned him that I just felt overwhelmed to over-perform along with every other night before. I said: I'm not a robot, just a mix of tired, hungry, sleepy, sore.
MS. COMEY: Could we go now to pages 77 and 78.
MS. COMEY: Jane, can you read the bottom left text here?
JANE: I say: And then to insult me three times about my bracelet and demeaning its value to me just crushed me. He's never talked disrespectfully to me in front of anyone before. The more he kept telling me about the bracelet and trying to get me to perform and have a good attitude because he bought me this bracelet just devalued and robbed me completely of its loving sentiment. And that completely crushed me.
MS. COMEY: What were you referring to here?
JANE: I was referring to the bracelet he had just given me and some insults he was throwing at me about the bracelet.
MS. COMEY: When was he throwing you insults about the bracelet?
JANE: Just saying, like, how he just got me the bracelet and then just like pushing me to perform and just kind of dangling the bracelet in my face when I had just gotten it.
MS. COMEY: Why were you resisting?
JANE: Because I was sore. I was tired. I didn't want to do it anymore, and I was just already exhausted and alone.
MS. COMEY: Can you read the next two texts you sent to Paul, please?
JANE: I said: In that moment, he just didn't even make me feel like a human being in that room, and I felt completely like a whore. Things weren't going as planned in his mind and as fast as he wanted. I'm not a trained actress, porn star. Myself discovering my own sexuality every time we all meet or take a long ass time to get in the mood. But also what do you expect from a woman after 24 hours of drugs and nonstop performance?
MS. COMEY: Can we go to pages 79 and 80, please.
MS. COMEY: Jane, I'd like to now please look at just the text you sent on the top right. What did you write there?
MS. COMEY: What were you referring to?
JANE: I was referring to the argument regarding me not just throwing the bracelet, leaving; me trying to explain why I felt that way and just trying to argue about it.
MS. COMEY: And when you tried to explain why you felt that way, how did Sean respond during that conversation?
MS. COMEY: For what?
MS. COMEY: Can you read the next text you send on this page, please?
JANE: I say: Turks was supposed to be us reconnecting again. We didn't speak for one and a half months because of how he handled me on my birthday. This is our first time seeing each other, and I did not want to be with anyone else but him.
MS. COMEY: What were you referring to when you wrote I didn't want to be with anyone else?
MS. COMEY: We can take this down.
MS. COMEY: Jane, if that trip was so disappointing, then why did you send loving messages to Sean after you got home thanking him for it?
JANE: When I got home, we spent some time together, and -- in Miami, and then just -- I think this is when the love contract comes in. I don't even know. But he's just so good at showering me with love and affection with all the sexual exploitation in between and then showering me with love and affection and all the sex and violating exploitation in between. It's just so confusing, and whenever I would send Sean loving messages, I was just able to, like, compartmentalize all the bad stuff and put it to the side, and all the loving messages are just me focusing on the good parts of this.
MS. COMEY: Jane, I want to switch topics. Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about whether Don wore a condom when you had sex with him during one of these nights?
MS. COMEY: I want to make sure we have that clear. The first time you had sex with Don in May of 2021, did you ask for a condom?
MS. COMEY: How did Sean respond?
MS. COMEY: And then do you remember listening to a recording during your direct examination from December of 2021 of a different hotel night with Don?
MS. COMEY: And during that different night, what did Sean do when he saw you and Don looking for a condom in December of 2021?
MS. COMEY: And what did he do?
JANE: He taunted me, made me feel silly for asking and just kind of dismissed me, and there was no condom that was used.
MS. COMEY: So during that hotel night with Don in December of 2021, did Sean let you use a condom with Don?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked several questions on cross-examination about your text messages with Kabrale?
MS. COMEY: Whenever you sent a sexual message to Kabrale, who were you with?
MS. COMEY: Whenever you asked for nude images from Kabrale, who were you with?
MS. COMEY: And do you remember being asked about texting Kabrale in connection with your birthday in 2022?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember who you were with when you sent those text messages?
MS. COMEY: Did you ever want to have sex with Kabrale?
MS. COMEY: Then why did you text him saying you had a mind-blowing experience with him?
MS. COMEY: Why did you want to make him feel good?
MS. COMEY: Jane, did you derive physical pleasure from sex with entertainers during hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Did you pretend to?
MS. COMEY: Why?
MS. COMEY: For who?
MS. COMEY: Jane, did you orgasm during sex with entertainers during hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Did you fake orgasms with entertainers?
MS. COMEY: Why?
MS. COMEY: For who?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about Sean's reaction to Kabrale extorting you by saying that he would release a video of the two of you from a hotel night?
MS. COMEY: And do you remember testifying on cross-examination that Sean said he did not want that video released?
MS. COMEY: At the time Sean told you that, had his homes already been searched by federal agents?
MS. COMEY: So at the time Sean told you that, did he know he was under criminal investigation?
MS. COMEY: Other than Kabrale, who else threatened to release video of you having sex with other men during hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: When did Sean threaten to release video of you having sex with other men?
MS. COMEY: '24?
MS. COMEY: How did you react when Sean threatened to do that?
MS. COMEY: Why were you scared?
MS. COMEY: Why did you think he would actually do it?
MS. COMEY: So did you believe him?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about Sean's drug use?
MS. COMEY: And do you remember testifying that Sean would become like a different person when he took ecstasy?
MS. COMEY: When Sean took drugs during hotel nights, were there times when you gave him subtle cues that you were tired and wanted to stop?
MS. COMEY: Can you remind us what some of those were?
JANE: I would lay on the bed. I would try to lean my head on his shoulder. I would say that I'm hungry. I would say that my stomach hurt. Or I would just -- I don't know -- like, make little faces or kind of sigh and just hope that he'd take the lead to end the night.
MS. COMEY: On those occasions when Sean had taken drugs and you gave those subtle cues, how did Sean respond each time?
JANE: He would say are you getting tired on me? You're not getting tired on me, are you? Let's end on a high note. Just push through. One more round.
MS. COMEY: So based on those responses and your observations of him, from your perspective, did it appear that Sean picked up on and understood your subtle cues even when he had been using drugs?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Based on your observations of him and his responses, did you understand that he had understood what you were communicating to him?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: What did you understand about why Sean was saying the things you just described?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Did Sean ever miss one of the subtle cues, to your memory?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Whenever you made those subtle cues, can you remember anytime that Sean did not respond in one of the ways that you just described?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: That's overruled.
MS. COMEY: You can or you cannot?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about how you would read between the lines of some of Sean's text messages?
MS. COMEY: What kind of texts do you remember Sean sending you during your relationship that indicated to you that he wanted you to set up a hotel night?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Hold on. Is there a time frame?
MS. GERAGOS: And form.
THE COURT: All right. Can you rephrase.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: What texts do you remember Sean sending you that you understood were asking you to set up a hotel night?
JANE: Things like I know you have a surprise for me, or what do you have planned or what do you want to do? What have you been thinking about? Have you been watching the videos? I'm coming home. I mean so many things that I just knew that there was about to be a hotel night.
MS. COMEY: When Sean sent you those texts, how, if at all, did you try to avoid setting up hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Would you try?
MS. COMEY: How?
JANE: I would just try to navigate the night to something else or say I wasn't into it or -- I don't know. These are very rare moments.
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about how Sean did not want entertainers at his residence?
MS. COMEY: Did you, in fact, have sex with entertainers in front of Sean at some of his residences?
MS. COMEY: How many times did that happen in 200 Mapleton?
MS. COMEY: How many times did that happen in Two Star?
MS. COMEY: How many times did it happen in One Star?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about the specific dates when hotel nights happened?
MS. COMEY: As you sit here today, can you remember the specific date of every single hotel night you had with Sean over your entire relationship?
MS. COMEY: Do you want to remember every single hotel night with Sean?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: That's overruled.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: You can answer.
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about times that you saw Sean at his home when you did not have a hotel night?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember on cross-examination Ms. Geragos asked you about times when you saw Sean at his homes and you didn't have an entertainer there?
MS. COMEY: And do you remember Ms. Geragos asking you if you got to spend the quality time you wanted with Sean on those occasions?
MS. COMEY: Can we pull up what's in evidence as Government Exhibit E-331-ER, please.
MS. COMEY: Jane, is this one of your notes?
MS. COMEY: That you wrote during your relationship with Sean?
MS. COMEY: In November of 2022?
MS. COMEY: Can you read just that top sentence, please?
MS. COMEY: What things had Sean promised you?
MS. COMEY: So were the times you got to spend with Sean at his home alone the kinds of things that he had promised you?
MS. COMEY: What's the difference?
MS. COMEY: We can take that down. Thank you.
MS. COMEY: Jane, did you get jealous of the other women Sean was seeing throughout your relationship with him?
MS. COMEY: What were you jealous of?
JANE: How they -- how they just had more ease and I had more pressure and that I was just made to be -- they weren't forced to just carry this impossible pressure and that they didn't have to hold any of that; that they didn't -- that they weren't asked to hold that pressure like I did. And I just felt that it was unfair that I was the one being -- being asked to just hold all of that pressure.
MS. COMEY: What are you referring to when you say all of that pressure?
MS. COMEY: Can we put up -- well --
MS. COMEY: Jane, why did you bring up hotel nights to Sean when you were also talking to him about the other women he was with?
MS. COMEY: What do you mean?
JANE: That what I was -- what I was trying to express every time I brought up women was why, why do I have to be degraded in order to be with you? Why do I have to break all of my boundaries and compromise myself and they don't have to, but then they can still experience you in ways that I want to? It was never about the women. It was the why was I being treated like this and they weren't?
MS. COMEY: Ms. Becker, would you please pull up what's in evidence as Government Exhibit A-442-34, pages 83 and 84.
MS. COMEY: Jane, are these text messages between you and Sean from August 19, 2023?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember looking at these on direct examination?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember what you and Sean were arguing about in these texts?
MS. COMEY: What were you arguing about?
JANE: He's upset because while I was high, I had fantasized this whole thing, and I told him that I would do this fantasy all-star thing and -- and at the end of that night, I remember just being so exhausted, like in my heart I knew that that was not going to happen and I hoped that he wasn't going to ask me about it. And this night, he's kind of checking up on that, that fantasy play. And in this fight I'm just kind of making, like, excuses that I'm, like, that I'm not feeling good, that, like, I'm feeling a little bit, like, overwhelmed. And this is how he responds to me.
MS. COMEY: Jane, was this fight about another woman?
MS. COMEY: What excuse did you send to Sean on this page?
JANE: I sent him a photo of my bloody tampon and just to prove to him that, like, I really wasn't feeling well, and I felt like I had to, like, really show him that I was -- like I can't do anything.
MS. COMEY: Jane, can you please read the text at the bottom left after that picture. What do you write, Jane?
JANE: I said: I wasn't playing any games. I said: I was still making it happen last night. Even when I got, even when I admitted just didn't want to do drugs. We said champagne. I canceled all plans and got child care. And then the last thing I said was: You pick and everything went left.
MS. COMEY: Can you read the next two messages you sent, please?
JANE: I say: You asked me what was wrong. I admitted I finally wasn't feeling good and said I just got my period. I politely just asked if I could sit this one out. Movie night was not on my mind because my first day period does not feel good to me. I had a week of coming down and pushing through to the gym and handling for school week. I still had not caught up on last week's rest. And then I say: I agree that all of our texts switch up to not feeling good to the accusations of me lying and playing you for money, and everything was fuck me all because I ended up not feeling good and asking if I can postpone. You have flaked and disappeared so many countless times on me. I have nonstop given you these nights for two and a half years, and this was the first time I just hit a wall and was honest and asking for space to go feel better. Now I'm waking up to more fuck me. I'm not a liar, a cheater, a user or a sex robot. I'm just as hurt and upset, and we need to have a serious talk about everything.
MS. COMEY: We can take that down. Thank you.
MS. COMEY: Jane, switching topics, do you remember being asked on cross-examination about your dress line and your swimsuit line?
MS. COMEY: When did you launch those?
MS. COMEY: How long did it take for them to become profitable?
MS. COMEY: And even when they became profitable, did you make enough money to pay your rent?
MS. COMEY: Even when they became profitable, did you make enough money to pay off the debt you acquired during the relationship with Sean?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being shown on cross-examination some texts from 2021 and 2022, where you spoke positively about entertainers and hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Approximately when did you start voicing to Sean that you wanted to stop doing hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: And after that, throughout the rest of 2021 and 2022, did you still go along with hotel nights even though you didn't want them?
MS. COMEY: And over that time, did you tell Sean sometimes that you didn't want to do hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: And in 2023, did you become more vocal about wanting to stop hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: When did Sean start paying your rent?
MS. COMEY: After that, what, if any, obligation did you feel to continue to hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Why?
MS. COMEY: What do you mean?
JANE: I just felt like I had to maintain not just emotional stability with these nights but just maintain, just my livelihood at this point, because my partner was responsible for that now, and so I just felt obligated to do what he wanted me to do.
MS. COMEY: After April of 2023, how often did Sean bring up your rent in the context of hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination whether you agreed to the sobriety party in October of 2023?
MS. COMEY: By the time of the sobriety party, how long had Sean been paying your rent?
MS. COMEY: By the time of that sobriety party, how many times had Sean threatened to stop paying your rent when you brought up wanting to stop hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: So multiple times?
MS. COMEY: Can we please pull up what's in evidence as Government Exhibit E-303-M.
MS. COMEY: Jane, is this a photo you took at Sean's concert before going to the hotel for the sobriety party that same night?
MS. COMEY: Let's zoom in on the created date, please.
MS. COMEY: What's the date you took this photo?
MS. COMEY: Can we please pull up what's in evidence as Government Exhibit A-104-66, pages 2 and 3, please. Let's start at the top.
MS. COMEY: Jane, what's the date of these texts?
MS. COMEY: So is this the day before you went to that concert and then went to the sobriety party?
MS. COMEY: What did you write to Sean the day before you went to that concert and then the sobriety party?
JANE: I said: I don't want to be fucked and mistreated. I don't feel like performing loveless, cold sex.
MS. COMEY: Let's read the next two texts you sent him on that same day, please.
JANE: I said: I'm not a porn star. I'm not an animal. I need a break. I don't want to do anything. I've hit a wall.
MS. COMEY: Let's read the next two texts you sent him, please.
MS. COMEY: Let's go to pages 4 and 5, please.
MS. COMEY: What's the next text you sent him?
MS. COMEY: Let's read the next three messages you sent him, please.
JANE: I said: Sex is sacred to me, and I can't be used like this anymore. I just wanted to make you happy, but it's creating a war inside me. I need a break. I can't be in another hotel room doing drugs and performing, exhausted for days and can't concentrate.
MS. COMEY: Let's go to pages 6 and 7, please.
MS. COMEY: Would you please read the next message you sent?
MS. COMEY: And would you please read the next message you sent?
JANE: I said: It's loveless for me and nothing satisfies you and you always push me to do more and more.
MS. COMEY: Did Sean push you to do more and more on the sobriety party night?
MS. COMEY: What happened between the second and third man on the sobriety party?
MS. COMEY: How did Sean respond when you threw up?
MS. COMEY: Go back out and do what, Jane?
MS. COMEY: We can take this down. Thank you.
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember being asked about, in December of 2023, whether Sean knew that you didn't want hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember earlier today during cross-examination you and Ms. Geragos were talking about December of 2023?
MS. COMEY: And do you remember you were talking about whether Sean knew that you wanted to stop doing hotel nights? Do you remember that, on cross-examination?
MS. COMEY: And do you remember you were starting to explain your understanding of what Sean knew at that time, and Ms. Geragos interrupted you. Do you remember that?
MS. COMEY: What were you going to say?
JANE: I was going to say but I have been telling him. I have been telling him since 2021 that I wanted to stop.
MS. COMEY: And Jane, do you remember on cross-examination when Ms. Geragos was asking you about the July 2024 night that you had with Paul and Sean?
MS. COMEY: And do you remember you wanted to explain why you didn't remember that until recently?
MS. COMEY: And do you remember Ms. Geragos cut you off?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Would you please explain?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. So let's get a fresh question, please.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Jane, can you explain why you didn't remember details of July of 2024 before a few days ago?
JANE: I remember it was after one of our meetings, and we were just talking about it and how that night was different. And as I was walking, I'm asking myself why was that night so different? And then I remember that I had taken this brand-new, like, liquid molly, and I remember when I had sprayed that in my mouth, like, 14 times, that's when it hit me. And as soon as it hit me, that's when Paul walks in the door, and then, otherwise that's one of the first nights that I had ever had that type of reaction with Paul.
MS. COMEY: And was that the only night when you used that liquid molly?
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember being asked on cross-examination about whether Sean was vulnerable with you during hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Was Sean vulnerable with you when he forced you to perform oral sex on Antoine on June 18?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. A. No.
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about whether Sean was affectionate with you during hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: Was Sean affectionate with you at any point when Antoine was in your home on June 18 and 19, 2024?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Is it a form objection?
MS. GERAGOS: He wasn't in the house on June 18.
THE COURT: Can you rephrase the question.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Do you remember Antoine coming over to your home at some point between June 18 and June 19, 2024?
MS. COMEY: And at the time that he was in your home, was Sean affectionate with you at all?
MS. COMEY: What was his demeanor toward you the entire time Antoine was in your home?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about how Sean was more loving to you after Cassie's lawsuit was filed?
MS. COMEY: Was he loving to you at all after the violence started on June 18, 2024?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about how Sean offered you ecstasy during hotel nights?
MS. COMEY: What did Sean say to you when he held an ecstasy pill out to you on that night of June 18 into 19th, 2024?
JANE: He said take this pill because you're not going to ruin my night. And then he says this is coercion.
MS. COMEY: What did you tell him during that same conversation?
MS. COMEY: What did you say to him that night about whether you wanted to have sex of any kind with Antoine?
MS. COMEY: Did you say that once or more than once?
MS. COMEY: How did Sean respond when you told him I don't want to?
JANE: You'd better get the fuck out there. You're not going to ruin my night. Go suck some dick. Go fuck him. Go do something.
MS. COMEY: How long before he said that had he kicked down four of the doors in your home?
MS. COMEY: How long before he said that had he kicked you to the ground when you tried to leave your home?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. COMEY: How long before he said that had he put you in a choke hold and lifted you off the ground by your neck?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Jane, at the time Sean said that, what injuries did you have on your body?
JANE: I had a bruise behind my leg. I had a black eye forming, and I had balls -- three size balls on the forehead topping my head.
MS. COMEY: What injuries did Sean have?
MS. COMEY: Jane, were you physically capable of stopping Sean from leaving your home that night?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: That's sustained. It needs to be rephrased.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Jane, how do you compare in strength to Sean?
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember being asked about what you and Sean had to drink on June 18, 2024?
MS. COMEY: Did you and Sean have essentially the same amount of alcohol to drink before the fighting started?
MS. COMEY: Based on your experience with Sean, does he generally have the same, less or higher tolerance for alcohol as you?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. COMEY: At the time when the fighting started, were you blackout drunk?
MS. COMEY: Do you have a clear memory of what happened?
MS. COMEY: Were you aware of your surroundings?
MS. COMEY: Were you aware of what was going on?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked about Sean following you when you locked yourself behind multiple doors?
MS. COMEY: What were you saying to Sean as he followed you through the house on June 18, 2024?
MS. COMEY: And what did Sean do each time you locked a door between you and him?
MS. COMEY: When he kicked it, what damage did it cause to the doors?
MS. COMEY: Did it rip off some wood from the doors?
MS. COMEY: Did his kicks dent the doors?
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember being asked about putting on or changing your clothes during this night?
MS. COMEY: Why were you putting on a dress so quickly?
MS. COMEY: Jane, when you were locking these doors between you and Sean, were you trying to get him to chase you?
MS. COMEY: Were you trying to get him to hit you?
MS. COMEY: What were you saying to him?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked about whether there was any bruising on your neck after this night?
MS. COMEY: Can you explain to us, using your arms and your hands, how Sean actually put you into that choke hold?
JANE: I remember he came up behind me and just squeezed my neck in between his arms, and I just remember just grabbing his arm, and I couldn't even touch my neck, it was so tight. And I was on my tippy-toes, and I thought I was going to pass out.
MS. COMEY: So did he put his arm over your neck?
MS. COMEY: Let's the record reflect that the witness is crossing her left arm across her body such that her elbow is in front of her throat.
MS. COMEY: So in other words, does he use his hands and his fingers to press your throat, or was his arm across your throat?
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember being asked on cross-examination about when Sean slapped you in the shower?
MS. COMEY: What were you saying to Sean in the shower?
MS. COMEY: Were you trying to get him to hit you?
MS. COMEY: Did you want him to hit you?
MS. COMEY: How hard did he hit you?
MS. COMEY: What happened when he hit you?
MS. COMEY: To the ground?
MS. COMEY: After you got out of the shower, you said you were sitting on the floor of your bathroom, is that right?
MS. COMEY: And at that point you said you were quiet?
MS. COMEY: What was Sean doing while you were sitting on the floor of your bathroom?
MS. COMEY: What was he yelling at you?
MS. COMEY: What did Sean tell you to do after that?
MS. COMEY: What was his tone when he told you get in a fucking outfit?
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember being asked on cross-examination about text messages that you and Sean exchanged after June 18 and 19 of 2024?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being shown a text message where Sean referenced that he just wanted to get out safe?
MS. COMEY: Did you understand he was referring to June 18 and 19, 2024?
MS. COMEY: Jane, when you locked yourself behind your bedroom door, could Sean have left safely?
MS. COMEY: When you locked yourself behind your closet door, could Sean have left safely?
MS. COMEY: When you locked yourself behind your bathroom door, could Sean have left safely?
MS. COMEY: When you locked yourself behind your guest bedroom door, could Sean have left safely?
MS. COMEY: When you tried to run out and he kicked you and then put you in a choke hold, could Sean have left safely?
MS. COMEY: When you hid for two hours away from your home, could Sean have left safely?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. COMEY: And just two more of these questions, Jane. When you were curled up in a ball in your yard, could Sean have left safely?
MS. COMEY: And when you were in the shower, could Sean have left safely?
MS. COMEY: Jane, did you want to have sex with Antoine that night?
MS. COMEY: Who told you to have sex with Antoine that night?
MS. COMEY: What did he say to you?
JANE: I'd better go out there and suck some dick or fuck something. And that I wasn't going to ruin his night.
MS. COMEY: Jane, do you remember being asked on cross-examination about meeting with prosecutors?
MS. COMEY: Throughout all of your meetings with prosecutors, what have prosecutors asked you to do in this trial?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember being asked on cross-examination about the gifts and the money that Sean gave you during your relationship?
MS. COMEY: Would you give all of that back if it meant you never had to have sex with another man during your relationship with Sean?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. COMEY: Do you have any financial stake in the outcome of this trial?
MS. COMEY: Are you expecting to get any money at all from testifying in this trial?
MS. COMEY: Why are you testifying here?
MS. COMEY: No further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Geragos.
MS. GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MS. GERAGOS:
MS. GERAGOS: Good afternoon, Jane. Just a few more questions. You just testified there were hours between the physical fight and Antoine coming over, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And that's an approximation, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you knew from the phone that Antoine was coming over, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you got dressed to go get him, to go into your car, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you got into your car when he arrived, right?
MS. GERAGOS: He only had your phone number, right?
MS. GERAGOS: He didn't have Mr. Combs's phone number?
MS. GERAGOS: He had only your phone number?
MS. GERAGOS: When he called, when he was there, did you pick up the phone?
MS. GERAGOS: Did you leave your home and get in your car and drive the half a mile to your back gate?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And did you open the gate for Antoine?
MS. GERAGOS: Does the back gate have a capability for you to leave the house?
MS. GERAGOS: Do any of the gates in the gated community have the capability to open so that you can leave your home?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And without telling me which family members, you have several family members in Los Angeles, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And they were somewhat near you, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you went to the gate in your vehicle, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You hadn't taken any drugs at this time?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you had had -- it had been hours since you had the last sips of alcohol, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Because at this time the glasses were broken, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you let Antoine into the gate at your home, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And then did he follow you in your car back to your home?
MS. GERAGOS: And then you let him into your home, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And then did he -- he came into your home and immediately Antoine and Mr. Combs went into your bedroom, is that right?
MS. GERAGOS: All right. And Since you reached out to Antoine for the first time in October of 2022, had there been a time, aside from the January 2024 time that you saw him in Las Vegas, that you saw Antoine and nothing sexual happened?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. The only time that nothing sexual happened between you and Antoine was January of 2024, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you had reached out to him yourself for the first time in October of 2022, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And so you went into the gate, the back gate at your gated complex, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you opened the back gate for him?
MS. GERAGOS: And you allowed him, and he drove in his car into your property, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you allowed him into your home?
MS. GERAGOS: You opened the door for him?
MS. GERAGOS: And you opened the door for him, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You didn't drive outside of your gated community, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you allowed him into your bedroom, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you did that?
MS. GERAGOS: All right. And in June of 2024 you had -- so you had your phone when he called you, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And in June of 2024, you had your own attorney, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you've already told us on cross-examination and on direct examination that that attorney represented you to the best of her ability, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you could go to that attorney, and you did go to that attorney over the summer for any issues that you had, right?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: I think it needs to be rephrased. And you should clarify that you're not looking for any of the discussions between Jane and her attorney.
BY MS. GERAGOS:
MS. GERAGOS: Jane, I am not asking for any -- just like every time I've asked you about your attorney this entire examination, I'm not looking for anything that you have spoken to your attorney about. OK?
MS. GERAGOS: In June of 2024, were you represented by counsel?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. You were represented by criminal counsel, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you had your phone that night, correct?
MS. GERAGOS: And without telling me if anything was said, did you reach out to your attorney that night?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And by June of 2024, federal agents had come to your house a couple months earlier. Do you remember that?
MS. GERAGOS: And they left their card for you, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And that they told you they were interested in you in their investigation. Do you remember that?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And so you had also the card of federal agents related to this case, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you knew at this time that he was under investigation related to this case, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Do you remember Ms. Comey -- sorry. When Antoine came in, you had already put on makeup?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you covered your hair?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you cleaned up the glass that was on the ground?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And did you tell Antoine I don't want to do this?
MS. GERAGOS: In your experience with Antoine, would he have done something that he thought you did not want him to do?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: That's overruled.
MS. GERAGOS: You don't know if Antoine -- OK. And did you at any point in the night when you saw Antoine tell him you did not want to do this?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. When you let Antoine into your house, did you say I don't want you to come in?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. When you let Antoine into your bedroom, did you tell him I don't want you to come in?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. When you let Antoine into the back gate, did you tell him I don't want you to come in?
MS. GERAGOS: Ms. Comey asked you if Mr. Combs was loving to you that night on June 18. Do you remember that?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Were you loving to Mr. Combs when you were calling him a pedophile?
MS. GERAGOS: Were you loving to Mr. Combs when you were calling him disgusting?
MS. GERAGOS: Were you loving to him when you called him a monster?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Do you remember Ms. Comey asked you what your strength was in comparison to Mr. Combs?
MS. GERAGOS: You're a very active woman; would you say that?
MS. GERAGOS: You go to the gym every day?
MS. GERAGOS: You lift heavy weights, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You care very much about the strength that you have, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And about taking care of yourself and your body, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you lift very heavy weights, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And that's because you want to be a strong woman, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And would you consider yourself strong?
MS. GERAGOS: A woman's power does not override a man's. On the night of June 18, did you start calling Mr. Combs a pedophile when you were sitting next to him at the counter?
MS. GERAGOS: Did you push his head into the counter?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And after that, did you start throwing candles at him?
MS. GERAGOS: And did you start throwing glasses at him?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And at any of that point, did he throw anything back to you at that point?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And were you continuously calling him a pedophile and a monster throughout that?
MS. GERAGOS: And were you telling him fuck you at that time?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And in response, at that point was he calling you crazy and a crazy bitch?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And at that point, a month earlier, you had seen Mr. Combs in the video at the InterContinental Hotel, right?
MS. GERAGOS: A month before that incident, you had seen Mr. Combs on that video at the InterContinental Hotel, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Do you remember Ms. Comey asking you on redirect examination about whether you had ever reached out to Kabrale without Mr. Combs?
MS. GERAGOS: And you had said you hadn't, right?
MS. COMEY: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: All right. Can you rephrase.
BY MS. GERAGOS:
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember Ms. Comey saying that -- whether or not you had reached out to Kabrale without Mr. Combs?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. The witness can answer.
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember Ms. Comey asking you whether you had ever reached out to Kabrale without Mr. Combs?
MS. COMEY: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is it the wrong person?
MS. COMEY: There was a qualifier to my question, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. What is the qualifier?
MS. COMEY: Sending sexual texts or requesting sexual images.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Geragos.
BY MS. GERAGOS:
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Do you remember reaching out to Kabrale in January of 2024, when you were no longer with Mr. Combs?
MS. GERAGOS: And do you remember reaching out to Kabrale in January of 2024 because you wanted to recommend him to another rapper in the lifestyle?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And that was because you believed that that other rapper in the lifestyle believed that you would know of other good entertainers?
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember Ms. Comey asking you about all the times that Mr. Combs could have left that evening when you had locked yourself in your closet, the bedroom and other areas of your home?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Mr. Combs's car was not there that evening, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Your car was there that evening, right?
MS. GERAGOS: He drove it looking for you?
MS. GERAGOS: And then you drove it to go and get Antoine from the back gate, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And so then when -- Mr. Combs's security, J9, finally picked Mr. Combs up, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And then Mr. Combs left, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you left twice that evening, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You left one time when you were in your dress and no heels, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you left another time in your vehicle, right?
MS. GERAGOS: To leave and go get Antoine, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You went and got Antoine from the back gate at your complex, right?
MS. GERAGOS: While Mr. Combs stayed, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You were just asked by Ms. Comey whether you would give up all of the things Mr. Combs gave you if you didn't have to do any of this, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You were not willing to give up your home, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You wanted to stay in the home that you and your child lived in, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. You receive, I think, you testified, almost $5,000 a month in child support, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And your child's father is a very, very wealthy individual at the top of the entertainment industry, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And how much do you make per month now on OnlyFans?
MS. GERAGOS: Do you make over $10,000 a month?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And so you have the financial ability to pay for this home yourself, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And this three years of debt that you're referencing, during those three years, Mr. Combs has sent you wires of over $150,000, right?
MS. GERAGOS: I'm asking you a question as to whether Mr. Combs has sent you over $150,000 during your three years with him.
MS. GERAGOS: Did you want more than that?
MS. GERAGOS: I'm asking if you wanted more than that.
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Are there months that you make even more than $10,000 a month on OnlyFans?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. How much is the most you've made per month on OnlyFans?
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember Ms. Comey asking you about when Kabrale had threatened to release the tape that he had of you to the media company?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And Ms. Comey asked you whether you knew that Mr. Combs was under investigation at the time that Kabrale was releasing those tapes?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And do you remember that at the time that Kabrale was threatening to release that tape, Mr. Combs said to you we need to call the police?
MS. GERAGOS: So while Mr. Combs was under federal investigation and an entertainer was threatening to release those tapes, he said we need to call the police, right?
MS. GERAGOS: All right. And he said that several times to you, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Because he did not want those tapes released?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you did not want them released either?
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember several times on cross-examination we saw the exhibit where he wanted to cover up cameras at an Airbnb that you guys would go to, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And he didn't want anybody to see him because he wanted to be private, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you wanted your sex life to be private as well?
MS. GERAGOS: And he didn't even want K.K. to know, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And do you remember saying on redirect examination about how you called K.K. after he threatened to release the tapes and you were worried?
MS. GERAGOS: And K.K. assured you it wouldn't happen, right?
MS. GERAGOS: She said she would talk to him and she would make sure that those tapes were not released, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And they weren't, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And after you spoke to K.K., you felt calm and comforted because he left you alone for a month, right?
MS. GERAGOS: He didn't reach out to you?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. You talked about subtle cues on redirect examination. Do you remember that?
MS. GERAGOS: And you would say things like I'm hungry or things like that, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember that oftentimes you would get food and protein shakes after each round with the entertainers?
MS. GERAGOS: You would say you were hungry, right?
JANE: That's an excuse to leave, but instead of actually saying let's go home, he would just order food.
MS. GERAGOS: OK. So you would use an excuse, correct?
MS. GERAGOS: And your excuse would be I am hungry, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And Mr. Combs would be on ecstasy?
MS. GERAGOS: And you would be on ecstasy?
MS. GERAGOS: And when you asked for food, he would get you food, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You asked for food, correct?
MS. GERAGOS: And you got food, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you're saying now he knows what you meant by that, right?
MS. GERAGOS: He should have known what you meant by that?
MS. GERAGOS: Did the entertainers think that you wanted to stop?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase.
BY MS. GERAGOS:
MS. GERAGOS: To your knowledge, do you think that the entertainers knew that you wanted to stop?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. GERAGOS:
MS. GERAGOS: When you said I'm hungry, did the sex stop?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. It kept going?
MS. GERAGOS: And then you would put on a show, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you would fake orgasms?
MS. GERAGOS: And to your understanding did the entertainers think that you were enjoying yourself?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Because you had spoken to Paul about that, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Enjoying yourself during these nights, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Over the three years of knowing Paul, you had spoken to him about enjoying these nights, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you had spoken to Kabrale over the three years of knowing Kabrale about enjoying these nights, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you had told Kabrale we had crazy sex last night, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Do you remember talking on redirect examination about the sobriety party?
MS. GERAGOS: The sobriety party you did not do any drugs, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You were completely sober?
MS. GERAGOS: You hated it, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you were completely sober?
MS. GERAGOS: And you kept going with three men, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And then after the sobriety party, we looked at those messages -- I think we were just looking at them this morning -- where you were confiding in Mr. Combs, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And he brought you over to his house; he said I'm depressed too, we need to be together, right?
MS. GERAGOS: I'm asking what he said. He said I'm depressed too, we need to be together, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you wanted to be with him, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You went to his home and you spent the night there and were there for two days, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And then you saw him a week later, five days later for Halloween, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And then four days later, for his birthday, you got him a moving TV so that he could watch porn videos with you and these entertainers, right?
MS. GERAGOS: To protect yourself from not having sex with other men and wanting to show him videos of you having sex with other entertainers, right?
MS. COMEY: Objection.
THE COURT: That's overruled.
JANE: No. I bought the TV so that that could be an option instead of me having to have sex with other men.
MS. GERAGOS: Because we went through this; over the three years of your relationship, there were several times where you did not have sex with other men and instead you watched the other videos, right?
MS. GERAGOS: All of it was shit, but I'm asking you a question. Over those four years --
THE COURT: Hold on, Ms. Geragos. Jane, if you can, please just answer Ms. Geragos's question, and then we'll proceed from there. OK?
THE COURT: Ms. Geragos.
MS. GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. GERAGOS: Over those three years, there were several times where you did not have entertainers over and you did what you called movie night instead, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. You would either watch porn or you would watch the videos that you recorded, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you said you put on a performance and you put on a show, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Because in those videos you wanted to look like you were really enjoying yourself? Is that what you wanted it to look like in the videos?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And then it did look like that in the videos, right, because then Mr. Combs and you would watch the videos, and it would really turn him on, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember Ms. Comey started her redirect by showing you an exhibit from June of 2022?
MS. GERAGOS: And it was an exhibit you had never seen before, but she showed it to you, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. Throughout your preparation with the government, would you see several things you had never seen before?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. What types of things would they show you that you had never seen before?
MS. GERAGOS: And you had never seen them before?
MS. GERAGOS: And that exhibit that we had seen was in June of 2022, is that right?
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember yesterday on cross-examination we went through several times between April and June of 2022 that you had no hotel nights with Mr. Combs?
MS. GERAGOS: I'm asking a question. Do you remember yesterday on cross-examination we went through several days where you had no hotel nights with Mr. Combs between April 2022 and June of 2022?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. There were several times that you saw him between April 20 and July, actually, where you saw each other and there were no hotel nights, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And there wasn't any, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And now you're saying thank God, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Because you said yesterday on cross-examination that you remembered those times as times where he let you off the hook, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you had no entertainment that night, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And there were several other times throughout April when you spent the night at his home and there were no entertainers, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And you made a choice when you told him you didn't want to do it and you did not do it, right?
MS. GERAGOS: There were several times in this time period that Ms. Comey brought up on redirect examination where you did not want to do it and you did not do it, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. When you saw Mr. Combs on April 20 of 2022 and you spent the night at his home in Los Angeles, you did not have a entertainer, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. When you saw Mr. Combs the next day, you spent the night at his home on April 21 of 2022 in Los Angeles, you did not have an entertainer, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. When you saw him a week later, on April 28 of 2022, you did not want an entertainer and no one came over, right?
MS. GERAGOS: When you saw him on April 30 of 2022, you spent the night at his home, you did not want an entertainer and you did not have one, right?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. And we just looked at an exhibit from June 19 of 2022, Ms. Comey brought it up for you, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you had never seen it before, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And it said you have to convince her, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And nobody had convinced you, right; you did not have an entertainer on June 19 of 2022?
MS. GERAGOS: I just went from April to June. That's right.
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember testifying yesterday on cross-examination that you were not persuaded on June 19 of 2022?
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember where Mr. Combs says -- you said --
MS. GERAGOS: If we can bring up the exhibit.
MS. GERAGOS: -- you planned something for me? And you said: I know what you want, baby, but I'm not really in the mood for that part; don't want to make you mad. Do you remember seeing that?
MS. GERAGOS: You've seen it a couple times now?
MS. GERAGOS: And you saw what he said to Paul, right; and that made you upset?
MS. GERAGOS: I'm asking if it made you upset.
MS. GERAGOS: And he replied to you: All good. Right?
MS. GERAGOS: And you testified yesterday that he let you off the hook that night, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You don't remember testifying to that yesterday?
JANE: After seeing Paul's message and Sean's message, I probably was persuaded to have a hotel night.
MS. GERAGOS: Now you're changing your testimony and saying that you ended up having a hotel night that night?
MS. GERAGOS: OK. You did not have a hotel night again until July. Does that sound right?
(Continued on next page)
BY MS. GERAGOS:
MS. GERAGOS: Do you remember Ms. Comey asking you about your dress line that you launched during your relationship?
MS. GERAGOS: You got a $20,000 investment in that clothing line during your relationship, right?
MS. GERAGOS: You got to start your own business?
MS. GERAGOS: And be entrepreneurial, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Now, Ms. Comey asked you about several instances that you did not want to engage in between those three and a half years. We went over several text messages yesterday and today where Mr. Combs told you that if you guys did not -- if you did not want to do, this you guys could just break up, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Well, there were times that you said you didn't want to do it, right? We went over October 2023 messages?
MS. GERAGOS: You say you didn't want to do it?
MS. GERAGOS: And then Cassie's lawsuit came out?
MS. GERAGOS: And that was in November?
MS. GERAGOS: And you just broke up, right?
MS. GERAGOS: For three months, right?
MS. GERAGOS: And your rent was paid?
MS. GERAGOS: And he said -- that's what he said several times over several messages over those years, you could just break up, right?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. GERAGOS: You didn't want that because you loved him, right?
MS. GERAGOS: One moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. GERAGOS: No further questions.
MS. COMEY: Two questions, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Jane, who told you to get in your car and let Antoine into your neighborhood?
MS. COMEY: What had he done to you shortly before he told you to do that?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Can we be a little more clear about what you're asking about?
MS. COMEY: What, if any, violence had he done to you shortly before he told you to do that?
MS. GERAGOS: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. COMEY: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you very much, Jane. You're done.
(Witness excused)
THE COURT: Ms. Comey, I understand that the government's next witness will be presented tomorrow morning, is that correct?
MS. COMEY: That's right, your Honor.
THE COURT: Members of the jury, we are done for the day. Thank you for your patience and for your close attention today. As always, don't speak to each other about the case. Don't talk to anyone else about the case. Do not look up anything about the case or investigate the case in any way. With that, we will see you here tomorrow to start at 9:00 a.m. All rise for the jury.
(Jury not present)
THE COURT: Ms. Comey, you have previously reminded me of this on several occasions, but who are our next witnesses.
MS. COMEY: It's Ms. Slavik. Your Honor, the next witness will be special agent Andre LaMon. I think I'm saying that correctly. And the following witness will be Ananya Sankar -- I forgot a witness. The first witness will be Jonathan Perez tomorrow, followed by Special Agent LaMon, followed by -- your Honor, I'm very, very sorry. It's been a long day. The next witness will be Special Agent LaMon. The following witness will be Jonathan Perez. And then Ananya Shankar.
THE COURT: That should take us through the end of the day.
MS. SLAVIK: That should take us through the end of the day. The thing I wanted to flag for the Court that maybe I didn't make totally clear, if during one of the breaks for Ananya Shankar, one of the summary witnesses, the reason we need rulings on different exhibits is because we're using the exhibits to make the summary chart, and we won't be able to finalize the summary chart until we have rulings on those exhibits. So whether we take it up this afternoon or whether we take it up tomorrow is up to the Court, of course, but we won't be able to put Ms. Sankar on until the summary chart is finalized. That's the point I was trying to make to the Court.
THE COURT: So I have a letter from the government that was submitted yesterday or today, actually dated today. I think it was submitted in the wee hours of the day. And I do not have a written response from the defense. Is the defense prepared to address the exhibit objections that have been raised? I would think so given that they raised the objections in the first instance, but I'll hear from the defense and I'm prepared to pick these up right now.
MS. GERAGOS: We're talking about the exhibits to the summary charts, right?
THE COURT: No. So I received a letter. What I understand the sequence of events is, there's a letter that has seven exhibits that have been identified that the defense either previously objected to and the objection was sustained, or now objects to. The government has identified five of those, which largely it says are admissible under 801(d)(2)(D), among other exceptions. I don't have the defense's response to those objections. Then there is a discussion of GX-A-629-A, which the Court previously ruled was not admissible, and the government re-urges the admissibility of that particular exhibit.
MS. GERAGOS: So on those -- Mr. Driscoll's handling those. I will sit down now.
THE COURT: So, Mr. Driscoll, as to these five exhibits that --
MR. DRISCOLL: In the letter chart?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DRISCOLL: Those ones? Yes. Our position is that the government hasn't met the foundation requirements for the hearsay exception cited. And if I could just point the Court -- well, how would your Honor like to do this? We could take each exhibit or each exception in turn.
THE COURT: Well, it's the government's burden to establish the admissibility of these exhibits. So let me hear -- let's go exhibit by exhibit if we need to. Maybe as a general matter, Ms. Slavik, you can address how these are admissible by reference to the people and prior testimony that were laid --
MS. SLAVIK: Exactly, your Honor. I think there are multiple bases for admission here, but just sort of as an overall organizing principle, all of these messages are exchanged between employees and/or agents of the defendant, and in some cases involving the defendant. There's been plenty of testimony on the record to support the application of this exception with respect to each of the messages, and indeed the content of the messages discuss matters very much within the scope of each employee's or agent's employment.
THE COURT: Why don't we start with GX-A-417.
MS. SLAVIK: Sure.
THE COURT: Put it up on the screen, please.
MR. DRISCOLL: Judge, before we go through them, I should clarify that we also have 403 objections to certain of these, and this is one of the ones that we have 403 objections to.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, this is a chat between the defendant, KK, Faheem and Robin. There has been testimony from various witnesses that Robin is the defendant's accountant. KK has come up multiple times.
THE COURT: Is this just two pages?
MS. SLAVIK: No. I'm sorry, this is a longer exhibit. I can give your Honor a paper copy if that would be helpful.
THE COURT: Is there a particular portion of this exhibit that is --
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, I think the entire thing is admissible. It's essentially a group chat -- I'm sorry. The government would propose redacting, I believe, the first page which discusses purchase of a Maybach truck. But with respect to the remaining messages, these are all messages between the parties about securing cash for the defendant. This appears to be the process by which the defendant gets cash in that KK or Faheem states in the group text, you know, Mr. Combs needs 50K. Mr. Combs then has to respond approved, and then Robin sets in motion whatever banking procedures are needed to actually get and deliver the cash.
THE COURT: Hold on for one second. So if people want to leave, they need to leave before we start any session. And if you're sitting here now, then you should remain until we are done. Thank you. Ms. Slavik.
MS. SLAVIK: In essence, your Honor, all of these messages relate to the defendant's employees getting cash for the defendant at the request of the defendant.
THE COURT: I'll take that paper copy. I think that will be easier.
MS. SLAVIK: I will note, your Honor, the chat spans, I think, a couple of years. But I will note that for several of the transactions in which an employee requests cash on behalf of the defendant, the date that that cash is requested is a date on which there is a hotel night that Jane either testified about or that there will be evidence of when the summary witness testifies.
THE COURT: So I take it that this goes to the means and methods of the alleged enterprise?
MS. SLAVIK: Precisely, and the way the conduct is facilitated, your Honor.
MR. DRISCOLL: Your Honor, this exhibit spans from June of 2021 to August of 2023. It's 49 pages long, and we asked the government which particular messages they think are related to the alleged conspiracy or could be relevant to the alleged conduct here. They didn't get back to us on that, and it's just impossible to tell from this three-year long chain why, you know, various approvals to obtain cash or to make certain wire transactions could pass 403. It's sprawling. I hear the government with respect to the agency exception to the hearsay rule because Robin is the defendant's accountant, but with respect to the messages in total, I mean, the 49 pages is just -- there's no way this could come in like this.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, the government respectfully disagrees. This entire chain is well within the timeframe of the conspiracy.
MR. DRISCOLL: I understand that, your Honor, but with respect to the particular wire approvals or cash approvals, without a proffer of relevance as to those particular approvals, it's --
THE COURT: Let me put it this way, Mr. Driscoll. You don't have an argument as to prejudice with respect to this exhibit. Your argument is that it lacks sufficient probative value in general. There may be certain aspects of this exhibit that are probative -- relevant and probative, but as a general matter, the 49 pages lack sufficient probative value. However, you're not arguing that there's something in these 49 pages of text that is prejudicial.
MR. DRISCOLL: No, I think that's not our argument. Our argument is the message chain in its entirety is prejudicial because the jury is going to draw an inference against the defense when there's been no foundation laid as to what these particular transactions are even about.
THE COURT: What inference would they draw from a --
MR. DRISCOLL: That somehow large amounts of cash or large transactions in this context suggest some type of guilt.
THE COURT: That's not the reason why the government is introducing this, right?
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, the government is introducing this -- there's been testimony that employees of the defendant deliver cash to the defendant at hotel rooms, both to pay commercial sex workers, to pay for drugs, things like that. This document shows that the cash is being requested by the defendant and being gathered and provided to the defendant by his employees and co-conspirators. Like I said --
THE COURT: Can you cut down this exhibit so that it achieves that purpose without being 49 pages worth of text messages, some of which appear to be for non-illicit purposes, such as the text message on April 23, 2023 on spending money on flowers or --
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, flower refers to marijuana.
MR. DRISCOLL: That testimony has not been elicited. We haven't heard that, for example.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, within -- I believe I'm looking at this, excuse me, the text message that you are referring to. $1200 spent on flower today. Witnesses will testify that that refers to marijuana. $1500 owed to Guido for miscellaneous. We've heard testimony that Guido is a drug dealer used by the defendant.
THE COURT: I stand doubly corrected. As to the other messages, is the government's submission that all of these text messages relate in some way, shape, or form to what has been alleged in this case; meaning, Mr. Driscoll suggests that there's 49 pages here, and this all can't be conduct that is related to this case, and you're saying that's just not right.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, I don't think it's necessarily conduct tied specifically to hotel nights, although, as I mentioned, there are certainly transactions that take place when a hotel night is taking place. But I think the larger point, your Honor, is the one that you made, which is that this communication relates to the means and methods of the conspiracy. 49 pages, you know, I believe that there have been many chats that have far exceeded 49 pages that are in evidence. I don't think the length alone should suggest any sort of relevance or lack of probative value.
THE COURT: And who is going to explain what flower is and who Guido is, and things of that nature?
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, Jane has already testified as to who Guido is, and we believe that two witnesses who have yet to be called will testify that flower refers to marijuana.
THE COURT: So the objection to GX-A-417 is overruled. A-518.
MS. SLAVIK: 518 is kind of a much shorter version of the same type of idea. This is a communication between D-Roc, who is a former security personnel for the defendant, Faheem, and the defendant. They're discussing cash in the safe. The defendant is instructing Faheem to count over a million dollars in cash by hand. And Faheem is explaining what he did. This is kind of the same type of idea. This is about the defendant's access to the cash that is used to facilitate his criminal conduct and his co-conspirators' awareness of that cash and their role in securing that cash.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Driscoll, what's the prejudice? Let's start there arising from this exhibit.
MR. DRISCOLL: Can I start with the limited probative value, your Honor? Because here the only discussion is about counting money in a safe and what the total amount is. It's not clear at all what that proves or why it's material to this case. I understand that perhaps the security guards are involved in the money-handling process, but the government doesn't need this exhibit to prove that. They've already demonstrated that. So its probative value is incredibly low. On the other hand, there is high unfair prejudice for the reasons I stated earlier. The exhibit talks about a million dollars of cash in the safe, $1,137,000 in the safe. The jury is going to draw a negative inference against the defense just because of the sheer volume of cash that's identified as being in Mr. Combs possession
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, there's been testimony from Derek Ferguson that the defendant's companies drew in tens of millions of dollars per year. I don't think that's a fair inference to argue.
THE COURT: Right. But there's a different inference that might be drawn from a text message with no context and no further discussion that indicates that the defendant had safe cash of over a million dollars, right?
MS. SLAVIK: I'm not sure I agree. There's been plenty of testimony on the record that the defendant keeps money in safes. This text message conclusively establishes who controlled that money.
THE COURT: The objection to 518 is sustained. Let's go H-101-A
MS. SLAVIK: H-101-A is a text message communication between D-Roc and Cassie Ventura. In this exchange, which takes place in January of 2017, Cassie is telling D-Roc that her bathroom door is broken down. This appears to be in reference to a fight with the defendant. She says, "He has my key, so I'm leaving. I do not feel safe." I apologize, this is another multipage exhibit. I have kind of a marked-up copy, but if your Honor would like the paper copy, that's fine.
THE COURT: No. How many pages is it?
THE COURT: I can read those here, so can we go to the next page? Can you go to 28. Next page. Next page. Next page. Next page. Next page. Next page. Is that the end?
MS. SLAVIK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Understood. So this is -- the basis for admissibility is 801(d)(2)(D) or (d)(2)(E).
MS. SLAVIK: I think there are multiple bases in addition to that, but you're right, this conversation takes place in that context.
THE COURT: So D-Roc's statements would come in under those exceptions and then Ms. Ventura's statements come in as providing context for the statements that D-Roc then makes.
MS. SLAVIK: Exactly, your Honor. I think they provide context, I think they provide present sense impression, statements of future intent, state of mind, et cetera et cetera.
MR. DRISCOLL: Your Honor, I disagree with the idea that Ms. Ventura's statements can come in just for context. The government is surely going to use this exhibit to highlight Ms. Ventura's statements, not D-Roc's statements.
THE COURT: What about the several exceptions, other exceptions that Ms. Slavik just identified? So let's start with present sense impression. Why wouldn't that apply?
MR. DRISCOLL: Well, you can tell from the context of this exhibit that Ms. Ventura is traveling. Here, just starting with the first message: My bathroom door is broken down. We don't have a foundation that she is observing that or -- basically, it doesn't meet the contemporaneous requirement of the rule. This is all looking backward at events. They want these messages to prove that these events actually occurred, so for that reason it doesn't satisfy that.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor the statements from Ms. Ventura "He has my keys, so I'm leaving. I do not feel safe. I don't feel safe. He has my keys. Puff has my house keys. Please take his keys." I think this very much describes something that is taking place and her reaction to it. So.
MR. DRISCOLL: She is not with Mr. Combs, so stating those things as a matter of fact, they're not present sense impressions.
THE COURT: Well, so first of all, we covered this before, but 803 applies to situations where statements are being brought in for the truth of the matter. They just happen to fall into one of the exceptions, and so they're admissible. So 803(1) says that one of these exceptions would cover a statement are describing or explaining an event made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. And so I take it -- I've reviewed the exhibit and Ms. Ventura is describing what she perceived in terms of the event, and so the fact that Mr. Combs had her keys would be based on her perception of the event that is being described that immediately preceded the text chain. And so for that reason Ms. Ventura's statements would be admissible under Section 803(1). Then you turn to D-Roc's statements, and those would be admissible either under 802 -- 801, excuse me, (d)(1) -- (d)(2)(D) or (E). Let's shift there for a second. Do you agree those would be admissible -- that D-Roc's statements would be admissible under one of those two exceptions given the nature of the communication and given the prior testimony that has been offered concerning D-Roc's relationship and his role working for Mr. Combs?
MR. DRISCOLL: Certainly not the co-conspirator exception. Perhaps the agency exception, but not with respect to all of these messages. He is coming to the house. He just text me. Someone was following you home? You safe? These are not on matters related to his employment. They're just random statements.
THE COURT: Well, I believe that sufficient testimony has been introduced that during the time period of Ms. Ventura's relationship with Mr. Combs, D-Roc was a trusted adviser and worked his security detail, and so functioned to provide security to both Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs and would oversee issues that arose of this nature, whether they are criminal in nature and would fall into the Subsection E exception, that was -- I think there's been sufficient evidence that's been put into cross the Rule 104 bar to establish the admissibility of D-Roc's statements under the exception in 801(d)(2)(D) at the very least. And for the reasons I previously stated, the exception for present sense impression would cover the communications from Ms. Ventura. So the objection to GX-H-101-A s overruled. Let's go to GX J 308.
MS. SLAVIK: J-308, your Honor, is a text message exchange between Faheem, a member of the defendant's security personnel, and Guido. This is a conversation about Faheem engaging in drug transactions for the defendant, and so that certainly falls within the scope of Faheems's employment based on the testimony that's been elicited so far and for that reason the --
THE COURT: How many pages is this?
MS. SLAVIK: Seven.
THE COURT: Can you just take me through the pages briefly. I have the first page. All right. Can you go to the next page. Go to the next page. Go to the next page. Go to the next page. Go to the next page. All right. So let me ask, Mr. Driscoll, how would this not fall into one of the exceptions that have been identified so again 801(d)(2)(D) or (d)(2)(E)?
MR. DRISCOLL: So with respect to 801(d)(2)(D), we haven't heard testimony that the scope of Faheem's job required him to engage in these types of transactions. No context has been provided for this chat message chain. We've heard limited testimony about someone named Guido, but we don't know the person in this exhibit is actually that individual. I understand the exhibit says, "Yo, it's Guido," but that's the only foundation that's been proffered. It doesn't mention anything about drugs. It just mentions outstanding balances. So for those reasons, I don't think it satisfies the exceptions that the government has cited, and also we have a 403 objection to this given its limited probative value.
THE COURT: Understood. And I think the outstanding issue is has enough of a foundation been laid as to Mr. Muhammad to establish that this type of transaction would be within the scope of relationship, agency relationship with the defendant.
MS. SLAVIK: Certainly, your Honor. Jane testified, I believe in direct, that Faheem dropped off drugs to Jane and defendant at hotel rooms. Jane also testified that Faheem dropped off cash. And Jane testified that Guido supplied drugs to the defendant.
MR. DRISCOLL: Your Honor, there's a difference between just dropping drugs off and going to purchase them from a drug dealer.
THE COURT: Well, I think that on a Rule 104 basis, so the question is, is there a preponderance of the available information that would permit a reasonable juror to connect the dots that Mr. Muhammad, as one of Mr. Combs' agent who Jane testified would drop off drugs and cash or on Mr. Combs' behalf, that he also engaged on the other side of those transactions to acquire drugs from an individual who has also been identified by Jane to be the source of drugs that Mr. Combs used. I think given all of that information, there is more than a sufficient basis under Rule 1048 to establish the predicate for 801(d)(2)(D). As to the probative value of the drug transaction, Ms. Slavik, I take it that this, again, goes to the drug-related racketeering acts that are alleged in the indictment as under the RICO charge?
MS. SLAVIK: That's exactly right, your Honor.
THE COURT: On that basis, I will overrule the objection to J-308. That leaves is with GX-J-141.
MS. SLAVIK: This is from the notes application from Faheem's phone. It's kind of similar in kind to the group text message about money, but this document or these documents, I guess, they're separate notes, they appear to be like a ledger that Faheem kept that tracked incoming cash and outgoing cash. In several situations in several notes, the outgoing cash relates to drug -- payments for drugs, and payments for hotel nights, things like that. But the broader point, I think, your Honor, is that this shows that Faheem really was like the, you know, the CFO of sorts with respect to Mr. Combs' cash.
MR. DRISCOLL: Your Honor, the Court can't admit this exhibit merely based on its own contents. It is a highly suspect document. We've heard no foundation from any witness about what this document is. So to rely on this document alone in satisfying the exception to the hearsay rules would be improper. And that's all the government has offered. We don't know what this is. I agree with the government, it appears to be a ledger, but we don't know that it is. We don't know when these transactions occurred or even if they occurred.
THE COURT: Can I see some other pages here?
MS. SLAVIK: I apologize, your Honor. This is another long one. If you'd like to see a hard copy, I can pass it up.
MR. DRISCOLL: And, furthermore, this is another example where we would have 403 objections to just admitting this in full without a proffer of relevance as to each transaction in this document, if they are indeed transactions.
THE COURT: Ms. Slavik, at least some of these entries have nothing to do with the alleged RICO enterprise, right?
MS. SLAVIK: Yes, your Honor, that's true. They're all cash transactions, and what we've heard from witness testimony so far is that Faheem was the head of security for the defendant at one point; that security handled the defendant's cash. And that the defendant used cash to pay for things like not only like drugs and hotel nights but also gave cash to romantic partners, and assistants were reimbursed with cash for purchasing personal items for the defendant. So I think, yes, there certainly are more transactions than necessarily relate to the criminal activity alleged in this case, but I don't think that suggests that this should be inadmissible.
MR. DRISCOLL: Judge, the reality is we have no idea what these notes refer to. The government just said they are all cash transactions. We don't know that because no foundation has been laid as to what they describe or what they are. So on that basis to just --
THE COURT: Meaning, that what you're saying is that in contrast, you know, you obviously disagree with some of the rulings that I've made, but you would say in contrast to the chats, where it would be at least clear who the people were, it's a communication among these people. Here, we just have a document that appears to be a set of notes, but we don't have anyone to explain exactly what they are, and so they're just being put in based on what I guess someone might infer by just looking at the notes, and that raises its own set of issues.
MR. DRISCOLL: That's right. In the previous exhibit, there were statements, for example, from Mr. Combs approving certain transactions. These are not hearsay that can be established for the rest of the exhibit to come in. But here, again, we just have no idea what these are, and there's when no testimony about it. And if the government wanted to call the person who created these notes, they could, and they've chosen not to. So here they would just unfairly prejudice the defense to blindly admit this. So the government could make whatever speculative arguments they think these notes reflect with no basis to do so.
THE COURT: The objection to GX-J-141 is sustained. I'll entertain -- if there's further foundation laid through a witness or there is a redacted version of this report that perhaps the parties can agree to, then I'll certainly entertain a request along those lines at the appropriate time, but right now the objection is sustained. That leaves GX-A-629-A, part two.
MS. SLAVIK: Yes. Another bite at the apple, your Honor. I think at this point there's been additional testimony. I think the foundation that your Honor thought was lacking a couple of weeks ago I think has now been laid. I think your Honor is familiar with the exhibit. Maybe we can pull up A-629-A. But essentially this is a message from Uncle Paulie, the former head of the defendant's security detail in October of 2015, in which Uncle Paulie recounts an incident that took place the previous night between the defendant and Gina, and warns the defendant that "If anyone called the police, the police is a hundred percent going to lock you. Even if she begs them not to, it's the law. So once they put the cuffs on you, your life and career is over. Puff, really all over her. Puff, really your family is going to go down the hill" Excuse me. It goes on.
And Uncle Paulie then notes that "newspapers and magazines will be paying her top dollar to tell everything," and that if the defendant was locked up, none of his co-conspirators essentially would be able to talk to Gina and get the defendant out of the situation because she would go into hiding. The probative value of this message is extremely significant, particularly because this message which the defendant responds to by saying: "Thanks. I feel you." This message was sent by Uncle Paulie to the defendant about six months before the incident at the Intercontinental, and essentially the defendant's defense to the bribery that's alleged in connection with the Intercontinental incident is that the defendant had -- he was motivated to bribe the security officers solely due to his interest in preventing bad publicity. This message conclusively establishes that he knew or should have known that physical violence with romantic partners could result in law enforcement action and potentially severe consequences with respect to law enforcement.
THE COURT: All right. What's the response.
MR. DRISCOLL: Yes. So first, your Honor, I think the government's argument now was a 404(b) argument, and we didn't receive any notice that they intended to rely on this particular episode or this particular message to prove either intent or motive or plan between Uncle Paulie and the defendant. So it should be excluded on that ground alone. And I'll just go back to the foundational point. The reason that the Court excluded this to begin with there was no foundation to tie what's communicated in this message to any actual event that took place. The government tried to elicit that foundation through, I believe it was, George Kaplan. He said the event did not take place at the time of this message. That contradicts the foundation that the government is now trying to lay. So we don't think there has been a foundation for relevance. It's not admissible for 404(b) evidence, and it should separately be precluded under Rule 403. This message concerns somebody who is not an alleged victim in this case. The government does not plan to call her, and basically the government just wants another bite at the apple to show that the defendant is purportedly a bad or violent person, and that's how they're going to use this.
THE COURT: And amplifying the potential prejudice, we actually have no idea what happened.
MR. DRISCOLL: Correct. The government said earlier that what occurred vis-a-vis this message is what George Kaplan observed, but it was clear from his testimony that was not the case.
MS. SLAVIK: No, your Honor. To be clear, I think what we have in the record right now is that Gina was a romantic partner of the defendant. The defense has emphasized that point repeatedly throughout multiple witnesses. Gina, though she will not be testifying, is a main character in this trial. George Kaplan testified that he observed a specific incident of violence related to Gina. And I am not suggesting that that act of violence relates to the incident that George Kaplan recounted. In fact, I think the evidence in the documents suggest that it's completely different incident. The travel records that are referenced by exhibit number in the government's letter indicate that the defendant paid for Gina to fly to Atlanta on the 8th of October 2015, and that the defendant and Uncle Paulie then traveled from Atlanta elsewhere on the 10th of October. So we know that the defendant, Uncle Paulie, and Gina were all together in Atlanta on this date. We know that there was violence against Gina, and we know that Gina was in a long-term relationship with the defendant, that I think most witnesses have testified was extremely toxic. This is not 404(b) evidence, your Honor. This exhibit would be used to show membership in the conspiracy, knowledge of co-conspirators, knowledge of the defendant, completely proper purposes; not 404(b).
THE COURT: Well, it is 404(b). It's just 404(b)(2), right, meaning you're saying it's admissible for a valid purpose under Rule 404(b), but don't you still have to comply with 404(b)(3), and Mr. Driscoll says that prior to you just saying that it was admissible under --
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, I think the important thing with respect to this text message is to show its effect on the defendant. Its effect on the defendant unequivocally gives him notice that these situations that he has with romantic partners can prompt law enforcement attention. That is completely contradictory to the argument that the defense is advancing with respect to the bribery in the Intercontinental Hotel incident, and the fact that this communication takes place immediately prior to the Intercontinental Hotel incident I think is are extremely probative.
THE COURT: That's fair, but I don't think I heard an answer. I mean, this is not part of the actual charged conduct that's at issue in this case. You're bringing it in for a purpose which is to show the various things you've identified. That's all well and good, but Mr. Driscoll says in addition to all the issues we've now addressed over the course of two hearings, there was no compliance with 404(b)(3), and this is the first time literally about ten minutes ago that this rule has been invoked as a basis for admissibility of this evidence so ...
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, to be clear, Gina is identified in the indictment as victim 2 -- excuse me -- victim 3, and incidents of violence were laid out in the enterprise letter. The defense has been on notice of Gina and the violent acts against Gina for quite some time.
THE COURT: All right. Understood. So I'm going to reserve decision on this exhibit because I need to look at what the government has indicated in its letter and consider Mr. Driscoll's arguments. I also want to take a look back at the last time we addressed this exhibit, which was awhile ago, and I'll take a look at the transcript. So I've hopefully simplified things with respect to the summary exhibit. I take it the only thing is you might want to have two versions of the summary exhibit
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, I apologize --
THE COURT: I was still talking, so we got to do it sequentially. It's getting late. It's late and it's been a long day. So if you have two versions of it, we can deal with that in the morning, and then you can proceed with the witness with this one outstanding issue. So now we've eliminated except this one thing because I want to take a closer look and consider your arguments here.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, with apologies, the exhibits we just addressed are actually not part of the summary chart.
THE COURT: We still need to go there?
MS. SLAVIK: We still need to go there.
MR. DRISCOLL: Can I be heard for ten seconds on this last exhibit?
THE COURT: If there's anything that you want to say, because we need to now move on. The parties know where to find us, not to keep you up until 3:00 a.m. but everyone seems to be used to it at this point.
MR. AGNIFILO: Your Honor, I apologize. Could we have a quick bathroom break?
THE COURT: To be honest -- yes, if someone is not addressing an issue, and you want to take a break, you should do so. There you go. Okay.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, one possible solution. I know it's been a long day. Ms. Sankar to whom these issues relate, she would be our third witness tomorrow. One possibility that the Court could consider is to take up these evidentiary issues after the second witness tomorrow, such that Ms. Sankar would be ready to testify first thing Monday morning.
THE COURT: Well, what are the issues?
MS. FOSTER: I think in favor of potentially differing is the fact that my understanding is there's dozens of objections that the defense has to exhibits cited in the summary charts. This was -- we were notified of this yesterday, and we submitted a letter a very early hour of the morning which outlined sort of generally what the documents are that are disputed and the bases. My understanding is basically virtually all of the objections are on hearsay grounds, and I think that the key dispute is over the scope of the agency exception. In the government's view, every single one of these chats is -- every single one of the chats cited in the summary judgment chart involves Kristina Khorram. As your Honor heard, her duties as Mr. Combs' chief of staff were extremely broad. They involved setting up hotel nights, purchasing facilitating the transportation of narcotics, various items such as that, and all of these chats are between -- virtually all of these chats are between Ms. Khorram and another employee of Mr. Combs, such as a personal assistant and/or security, Ms. Khorram and the defendant himself or Ms. Khorram and one of either Ms. Ventura or Jane.
THE COURT: So what we'll do is I'll take a look at the letter. Has the defense had an opportunity to provide a written response to this letter?
MR. DRISCOLL: No, we haven't. This was filed at 2:00 a.m.
THE COURT: You weren't up at 2:00 a.m.?
MR. DRISCOLL: I wasn't.
THE COURT: So I'll give the defense a chance to respond. I'll try to get through as much as I can at the beginning of the day tomorrow. If we are unable to do that, then we'll pick it up during the day. And I think the suggestion was that Mr. Sankar could testify on Monday.
MS. FOSTER: That would be great because whatever happens, we have to then make edits to the summary charts, show them to Ms. Sankar, and so actually the weekend would be perfect for being able to do all of that.
THE COURT: Let's handle it that way. That way we'll have a full record, and we can do this without having to sit here until 10:00 p.m. today with no written record. Anything further from the government?
MS. SLAVIK: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything further from the defense?
MS. SHAPIRO: At the risk of annoying the Court, one quick request. I know your Honor asked to us submit our response to the juror by 7:00 p.m. I have done a substantial amount of work on the letter, and I might get it in by 7:00, but if I -- I just need a little leeway in case it's not ready.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MS. SHAPIRO: By 8:30 or so.
THE COURT: That's fine. Anything further from the defense.
MR. AGNIFILO: No. Thank you.
THE COURT: Tomorrow we'll be here to start at 8:30. I have a short matter that I have to attend to at 8:00. It might be just a little after 8:30. I want to give you a heads up. If I'm not here at 8:30, I'll have my staff come down and inform you so you're not sitting and waiting so you can continue working. Everyone have a great night.
(Adjourned to June 13, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.)