(Jury not present)
THE COURT: All right. Please be seated. If anyone needs a break or needs to use the restroom or anything like that, you should do it now. So, please, go. Now, in terms of the issue that was raised at sidebar, maybe Ms. Estevao, you can, or Ms. Geragos, you can explain what is going on here. Under the hush tones at the sidebar, I may have missed things. You can tell me exactly what is happening.
MS. GERAGOS: Our application, your Honor, is that Ms. Ventura's husband not be in the courtroom under Rule 615. The reason for this -- and of course we do not know what her direct testimony will be at this time -- but if the government elicits any allegation about any alleged rape by Mr. Combs in the summer or fall of 2018, I could see that there could be a possibility, based on how cross-examination goes, that we may need to call him on our case for impeachment purposes. Additionally, there are several other, I mean, Ms. Johnson said at the sidebar this is just a very small period of overlap, but there has been three instances I want to point your Honor to that could be relevant with respect to his potential testimony. So the first would be the alleged rape in the summer or fall of 2018, if they go into that on direct examination. The second thing would be whether or not Ms. Ventura is going to testify on direct that Mr. Combs ever threatened Mr.
Fine when they had -- when their breakup was -- when they had broken up, when they weren't together anymore and she was with him. And then the third is that after Ms. Ventura made the demand of 30 million, began to make the demand of $30 million to Mr. Combs and prior to Ms. Ventura's lawsuit against Mr. Combs, Mr. Fine sent several very threatening text messages to our client saying that he would like to beat the F word out of his old -- just several words that I will not repeat on the record. There are several threatening messages that my client received that we got in discovery from the government. And, again, we don't know what the direct will be, so I think this argument would be a little bit better if we did. These three areas of possible testimony that we may -- that we could have to call him on our direct case. And the reason we didn't put him on our witness list, of course, was because that witness list is for the defense's case in chief.
But there are several potential witnesses that, depending on how the government's case comes in, we would have to put on in our case in chief. That's our application. We are certainly not looking to not have her have support people in the courtroom. That is not what we're looking to do. I expect, my understanding is that her brother will be in the courtroom. Her brother is someone that was around their entire relationship, but I don't expect that his testimony would be relevant at all in this case, based on our review of the 3500 and the messages. And so we are not making an application that he be excluded in any way or that any of her other family members, except for her mother, who I expect to testify, not be in this courtroom. It's really with respect to her husband because of these three discrete issues.
THE COURT: OK. Ms. Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, a few responses. First, with respect to both this witness and future witnesses, the government would respectfully request that the defense provide more notice of any potential impeachment witnesses it intends to call, to the extent they are not -- may call, to the extent they are not on the 34-witness list. Because this is nothing that was foreseeable to the government until a few minutes ago when it was raised. I do not expect that any of these topics will be covered in today's direct examination. We may cover one of those topics likely tomorrow. That would be the first one, the rape. As I said at sidebar, the government is open to speaking to the defense about what, if any, stipulations could be entered -- a fact could be entered that could obviate the need to call Mr. Fine as a witness. I really am not sure how, if at all, he would be able to testify about an alleged rape that occurred between Mr. Combs and Ms. Ventura. But we're open to having that dialogue, and we would ask that Ms. Ventura be allowed to have her support -- her people, including her husband -- here in this courtroom. She has various rights under the Crimes Victim Rights Act and we would ask that he be allowed to be present.
THE COURT: All right. And, look, Rule 615 is mandatory on the court once it's invoked. The rule has been invoked. The exception is, I suppose, in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 60, and that would pertain to victims, so that doesn't not apply here. So I don't understand how there would be an exception to the rule, unless the defense said -- and maybe they are willing to do this -- that given what you've said about the nature of the examination, it's probably not going to come up this morning and that might be, for you, one of the critical times for her husband to be in the courtroom. So if that is not going to come up this morning, it may be something we can deal with in the afternoon session. That depends on the defense. Unless I'm missing something, that depends on the defense indicating that they are comfortable with that and waiving any right they may have under Rule 615. If they invoke the right, maybe you can help me. I'm not seeing what the exception is you're trying to invoke, given Rule 60 addresses this issue and it only pertains to victims.
MS. JOHNSON: Understood, your Honor. Then I would, again, reiterate my request for much more significant notice.
THE COURT: It is no longer a request. It is now an order from the court. So, and you don't need to explain what is happening, Ms. Geragos. All you need to say is that, for this witness, we are seeking exclusion of X person because of our understanding of what the testimony may be. That way, the government will have advanced notice, so there is not a surprise in the immediate, you know, right before or right during anyone's testimony.
MS. GERAGOS: Understood.
THE COURT: All right. So, Ms. Geragos, what is your position?
MS. GERAGOS: Can you give me 15 seconds to confer, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Counsel confer)
MS. GERAGOS: Your Honor, we've conferred. We understand she would like her support people. If he wants to come into the courtroom today, before 2018, the 2018 time period starts, we are fine with him remaining in the courtroom until then. We would ask that he be excluded once we get into that time period.
THE COURT: All right. So, Ms. Johnson, I think all you need to do is to request a sidebar at the appropriate juncture, and we'll take that sidebar and then we'll make the adjustments as necessary.
MS. JOHNSON: Understood, your Honor. I want to flag one idea. I will be asking one series of questions early in the examination about a post-2018 time period, but I don't believe it would implicate any concerns. It's related to the authentication of evidence and electronic devices provided by the witness.
THE COURT: That's up to Ms. Geragos.
MS. GERAGOS: That's fine.
THE COURT: OK. All right. So we'll take it there. We'll be back in a couple minutes.
(Recess)
THE COURT: Anything to raise before the government calls their next witness?
MS. JOHNSON: No, your Honor.
MR. AGNIFILO: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have our jury.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Please be seated. Is the government ready to call their next witness?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor. The government calls Casandra Ventura.
THE COURT: All right.
COURT CLERK: Remain standing and please raise your right hand. CASANDRA VENTURA, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE COURT: Ms. Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, your Honor.