UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 24 Cr. 542 (AS) SEAN COMBS, a/k/a "Puff Daddy," a/k/a "P. Diddy," a/k/a "Diddy," a/k/a "PD," a/k/a "Love," Defendant. Trial
New York, N.Y. May 14, 2025 9:17 a.m. Before: HON. ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, District Judge -and a Jury- APPEARANCES JAY CLAYTON United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MADISON R. SMYSER EMILY A. JOHNSON MAURENE R. COMEY MEREDITH FOSTER MITZI STEINER MARY C. SLAVIK Assistant United States Attorneys APPEARANCES
(Continued)
AGNIFILO INTRATER LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: MARC A. AGNIFILO TENY R. GERAGOS -and- SHER TREMONTE BY: ANNA M. ESTEVAO -and- SHAPIRO ARATO BACH LLP BY: ALEXANDRA A.E. SHAPIRO JASON A. DRISCOLL -and- XAVIER R. DONALDSON BRIAN STEEL NICOLE WESTMORELAND ALSO PRESENT: LUCY GAVIN, AUSA Paralegal Specialist SHANNON BECKER, AUSA Paralegal Specialist RAYMOND MCLEOD, Defense Paralegal Specialist
(Trial resumed; jury not present)
THE COURT: Are we ready to proceed? Please be seated. First matter is that we have a note from a juror about a scheduling accommodation on Friday, June 20, which won't be an issue. I'll enter this as Court Exhibit 2. The parties can review the letter and they can advise the court if there are any issues based on that. Second question -- Do we need to wait for Ms. Johnson?
MS. COMEY: No, your Honor. I have their authorization to go ahead without Ms. Smyser and Ms. Johnson.
THE COURT: In terms of the Rule 615 issue raised yesterday, is that going to be an issue for this morning's proceeding, or have the parties discussed what to do?
MS. COMEY: Meaning with respect to consulting counsel?
THE COURT: No. The 615 issue concerning Ms. Ventura's husband.
MS. COMEY: That may be an issue this morning, but the parties are aware of the agreement to have him removed from the courtroom before a particular subject matter comes up, and we'll be sure to pause at that point and make sure that he is removed from the courtroom.
THE COURT: Thank you. Third issue, did we get the privacy screens installed?
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, I can take that. Yes. With the thanks to the courthouse tech staff, my understanding is that the privacy screens are currently affixed to the relevant juror screens.
THE COURT: Good. Thank you. On the consultation with counsel issue. The defense, in their late-breaking letter, I think that's the last one in the chain, indicates that they have no objection to communications about a witness's health or correspondence concerning trial logistics. I take it, Ms. Shapiro, that would also include no objection to questions about potential liability arising from any testimony as well, right? Meaning that if a witness were concerned about the implications of their testimony -- not the substance, but the implications of their testimony -- that is also something they can consult with the lawyers about.
MS. SHAPIRO: For instance, if something came up and the witness wanted to consult with the attorney about whether they should assert the Fifth or something like that?
THE COURT: Something along those lines. There is other versions of that.
MS. SHAPIRO: I think we're OK with that, your Honor.
THE COURT: So the sole instruction would be no communications concerning the substance of the testimony. And as you point out, you would say that substance would include things like the substance of any testimony about, for instance, Ms. Ventura's civil lawsuit?
MS. SHAPIRO: Correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Given those narrow contours, Ms. Comey, and the cases cited in defense's letter, is there an issue here? I think what Ms. Shapiro is saying is they have no issue with emotional support. They have no issue with inquiries concerning any kind of liability. They have no issue with any inquiries concerning witness health or any of those trial logistical issues. Given that, it would seem that the defense's submission is well taken, understanding there is no dispute, this is a matter of discretion.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think there would still be an issue, at least with respect to consulting, allowing witnesses to consult with their attorneys about matters of potential privilege. I think this may be the main issue of dispute is that I think that witnesses are likely to be asked about topics that touch upon areas of past representation by attorneys in connection with civil matters. And I think that victim counsel and witness counsel are rightly concerned about being able to confer with their clients about any assertion of privilege. I will also note that, before agreeing to that kind of compromise, counsel for Jane, counsel for Mia, and counsel for Ms. Ventura are in the courtroom, have noted they joined the government's letter and have asked to be heard by your Honor before your Honor makes a decision on this point.
THE COURT: Well, let's turn back, Ms. Shapiro. I take it the government is saying if the witness wants to consult with their attorney about the assertion of privilege, that also is something that you have no issue with. Again, we're talking about the substance of testimony. If you're talking to a witness about what happened, what they did, historical events, you just don't want that to be the subject of discussion. Tell me what I'm supposed to say about this. Is it OK that I said that? Should I change my testimony? Things of that nature, that we typically see in any kind of civil or criminal trial. But if the witness wants to consult with their attorney about whether to assert a privilege or whether they are -- whether or not they are permitted to talk on a certain subject, that is something that it would seem within bounds for a witness to discuss. And if an issue comes up, then we would address it here in court. Again, the thing you're primarily concerned about is just the substance of testimony.
MS. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor, but --
COURT CLERK: Can you pull that mic a little closer.
MS. SHAPIRO: I'm sorry. I think it kind of depends on the way it comes up, because if the -- first of all, we're obviously not intending to elicit any privileged communications. And, as typical, we will make sure that questions are framed in a way that avoids that. If an issue comes up, presumably at least in my experience what will happen is the government will object if there is a problem, and then the court can police it. And if necessary, at that point, then the witness wants to talk to their lawyer, then that's fine. But I'm a little concerned with the idea that, during the break, there just could be generalized discussions about those kinds of issues. Because, necessarily, it's hard to see how that would be divorced from the substance of the testimony, if it's just during a break, a general conversation about the testimony and what might come up. If that occurs during the cross. It's another thing if, for some reason -- again, we don't anticipate doing this. We will try to avoid eliciting any response that would call for privileged communications. You know, then obviously we wouldn't object if something came up during the testimony and there needed to be a break for the witness to consult with the counsel.
THE COURT: Is the government consulting with counsel for any of these witnesses as, you know, where this issue is coming up? Meaning, is the government back there, when we have a break, having any discussions with these individuals' lawyers, or no, you're not having those kinds of discussions? I mean, you know, because what Ms. Shapiro is, I think, concerned with and what comes up sometimes is there are no discussions between one side's lawyer and an actual witness, but there may be discussions between the attorneys and the other, the witness's attorney. Then the witness's attorney speaks then with the witness, and there is a concern that, through that daisy chain, you would have some impact on the witness's testimony. That would never -- I have no reason to believe that would ever happen here, but that, I think, is part of the concern that's being articulated by the defense.
MS. COMEY: If what your Honor is asking is whether the government attorneys would be trying to influence a witness's testimony --
THE COURT: That's not what I'm asking you. I'm just asking you whether you -- When I go back there --
MS. COMEY: Yes.
THE COURT: -- and you all go into the hallway, are there discussions happening between the government and the witness's attorneys during testimony? That's what I'm trying to understand.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I'm not saying --
MS. COMEY: -- during direct testimony, yes. I'm sure that is happening during direct testimony. During cross-examination, it certainly has not happened, other than during Mr. Phillip's cross-examination, when in the courtroom I went to go talk to his attorney with the permission of your Honor. And I think that we would be in touch with victim counsel to discuss security and logistics and those types of matters. But in terms of discussing the substance of testimony, no. I mean, we would not do that.
THE COURT: All right. Understood. I was asking a more general question. Just were you having any discussions --
MS. COMEY: The answer is yes. We would need to speak with these witness's attorneys.
THE COURT: During cross?
MS. COMEY: During cross, we think these witnesses will be on the stand during multiple days during cross, and we are arranging for their transportation, for their security. And for those reasons, we do need to speak with them and their attorneys. But we only talk about security and logistics.
THE COURT: Understood. That, I think, falls outside of what Ms. Shapiro is concerned about. So, Ms. Shapiro -- This is only going to come up, Ms. Comey, after the lunch break, is that right?
MS. COMEY: That's right, your Honor. I will note, again, that counsel for three of the victims are here. And as we noted in our letter, we do think victims are differently situated than other witnesses. And in the exercise of your Honor's discretion, we do think that it would make sense to draw a line between non-victim witnesses and victim witnesses, given the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
THE COURT: I will hear them. However, this is coming up at the very last minute, and so let's see if we can -- No, I'm not saying it's anyone's fault. You all have tons of stuff to do. It's absolutely understandable this is coming up in this way. Rather than talking about this in the abstract, Ms. Shapiro, can you draft -- do it on a piece of paper -- the instruction you would propose, given what we've discussed here and the clarifications that we made, and give that, if you can, to Ms. Comey so that she can take a look at it. Maybe you think there are modifications that you can make that would narrow it enough so that it would accommodate your concerns and the concerns of any witnesses or victims, so that we can see if everyone can have their interests reflected in the instruction I would give. I think everyone's on the same page. No one wants someone being told about or having discussions about the substance of their testimony. It seems like everyone should be on the same page. Rather than making this a big issue that is going to gobble up trial time, let's see if we can figure this out. And if we can't figure it out, then we'll have the lunch break to discuss it, and I'm happy and I will hear from anyone who wants to be heard on this issue.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Then I think the next issue are the rule of completeness objections.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, defense counsel sent a zip file containing proposed government exhibits, and then the proposed defense exhibits that include additional text messages. Let me just flag for your Honor that the government is currently reviewing, side by side, those exhibits, and I think we may be able to reach agreement on several of those. So maybe we can take this up at the lunch break, if that is acceptable to your Honor.
THE COURT: That is absolutely -- that is appreciated and acceptable. The only reason I was going to jump into this now, I thought it might come up in the morning.
MS. SLAVIK: With respect to these particular messages, I don't believe they will come up before the lunch break.
THE COURT: Perfect. Thank you. Anything else, Ms. Comey?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. We were discussing with defense counsel last night, and unable to reach agreement, on a matter that I think we need to raise before your Honor. It relates to marked exhibits from the defense. As of today's date we have received only four total marked exhibits from the defense. They produced those to us on April 27. Their deadline for producing exhibits. We understand from conferring with them that they have continued to mark new exhibits and they have not produced them to us, and they intend to possibly offer some of them during cross-examination of witnesses, including Ms. Ventura. We have made clear to the defense that we have no need to and no right to see anything that they plan to show just the witness for refreshing recollection or impeachment. We understand that. But to the extent the defense intends to offer any marked exhibits for the jury to see, we believe that the court contemplated those marked exhibits would be shared with the government back in April.
We understand that trial happens, especially for the defense, they may need time to mark exhibits. We're willing to negotiate that in good faith. But we are worried that this is going to keep coming up throughout the trial, if the defense is of the view that they do not have to given us marked exhibits that they plan to seek to offer for the jury to see during cross-examination. So we wanted to raise this because we are worried that if we are just handed exhibits that are going to go to the jury in the middle of, or right before, cross-examination, we will not have the time and will need to take a break to check the authenticity and admissibility of those documents. I understand that some of those documents may come from the government's discovery productions. Your Honor knows those productions were terabytes of data, and we need to check and make sure we actually know the providence of these exhibits. We also might have objections under 401, 403, hearsay, rule of completeness.
And we just shouldn't be in a position to have to assess all of that while a witness is being cross-examined. So we would ask that the defense be directed to provide us with marked exhibits on a rolling basis as they mark them or no later than the morning that they plan to offer them. We think that is entirely reasonable, and it's more than consistent with what the government has done. We produced hundreds of marked exhibits on our exhibit deadline. And as we have marked additional exhibits, we have in realtime been producing them to the defense throughout the trial. Our goal is not to have this be trial by ambush and our goal is not to waste the jury's time in the middle of a witness's cross-examination.
THE COURT: Response.
MS. GERAGOS: Yes, your Honor. I think both Mr. Agnifilo and I will handle this. First, we have been conferring with the government on this point. We, with respect to any -- I just want to break it up and give you the background. With respect to any Rule 16 we have that the government did not have in their possession, we turned it over at our exhibit deadline. They have all of that Rule 16. They had it on whatever Sunday that was. I think it was the 27th. Anything that we may offer --
THE COURT: This is the four exhibits?
MS. GERAGOS: The four exhibits. Exactly. Anything that we may offer and -- I want to be very clear on this point. we don't know what that is. And so, yes, we are marking a tremendous amount because we don't know -- it doesn't even seem that have of her direct is done, so we --
THE COURT: Give me the categories of what you're -- what you might put in. Not the substance. I'm saying the categories. Because Ms. Comey is saying that, to the extent that you are using any marked exhibit for purposes of refreshing the witness's recollection or for impeachment, then they don't need to see that in advance. However, if you're trying to put something in front of the jury, then there are a host of issues that it would be unfair for them to have to deal with as they are brought up in court.
MS. GERAGOS: Well --
THE COURT: Are there.
MS. GERAGOS: -- I will start with categories. Categories, broadly, are more text messages between Mr. Combs and Ms. Ventura. So, in an abundance of caution, we do not know what we will offer. We are marking several chains of text messages. Do we think that, even when we are in the process of marking, I should say we're not complete, that full chains would come in? No, we don't. I think we're trying to mark things in an abundance of caution, and maybe a couple text messages will come in here and there. But in terms of fairness, your Honor, if I could just talk about that point. This is cross-examination. And as we've been discussing during direct examination, the government has an absolute right to continue preparing their witness. And so, to give over everything that we have marked or things that we think could be important, things -- it's kind of hard at this stage to determine what would be a cross-examination exhibit, what would be something that we would try to put in. So, to give that all over while she's on direct examination so that the government can then prepare her on potential exhibits, that is unfair for the defendant. It's not trial by ambush. These are all documents they've seen. They have them in their possession for eight months before we got them. So in terms of a fairness argument, it's a fairness for the defendant. In terms of the government, we gave them anything that they didn't have by our deadline, so...
THE COURT: Well, we are here, and there are exhibits that you may have marked and you're saying we may use some of them, we may not. At a certain point, we were told yesterday maybe half a day remaining on direct. So let's assume for the moment that we ended the direct around the lunch hour. Would you be in a position, once cross-examination has commenced at least for this witness, and we can figure out what to do moving forward, to furnish to the government any exhibits that you have marked that you may use given, at that point, you'll be in cross-examination, the government wouldn't have an ability to even speak to the witness? And so if you're just giving them at least the set of things that you might use that don't fall into the categories that Ms. Comey identified, then at least they can start looking at those, and we can try to eliminate some of the potential evidentiary issues, the government can ask you any questions it wants, you can -- if you don't answer, then we'll bring it up to the court. But at least we're getting a little bit ahead of it while meeting the concern that you raised about direct examination.
MS. GERAGOS: Yes. I have spoken to my paralegal. We are doing everything we can. She is printing everything we marked last night. So we'll bring it over and it will be here in the government's hands at that point.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may I be heard on the impeachment issue?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. COMEY: So, that is, Ms. Geragos' concern is precisely why we acknowledged we are not entitled to documents used to impeach the witness and will be shown to the witness to refresh her recollection. We agree, we should not see those, because we should not be able to prepare. It's fair for the defense not to want us to prepare the witness for how she might be impeached or what documents she might be shown to challenge her credibility. What we are talking about is documents they might want to admit as affirmative evidence, affirmative defense evidence to the jury. That is distinct.
THE COURT: Right. We are talking about prior inconsistent statements.
MS. COMEY: Exactly, your Honor. These are substantive exhibits that should have been turned over on April 27. That is what should have been. That is what the court's order contemplated, was not that the government has to show what exhibits we're going to show to the jury this April, but the defense doesn't have it until cross-examination starts. We're not talking about impeachment or cross- examination. We are talking about a affirmative evidence that the defense wants to use in front of the jury as part of its defense case.
THE COURT: So, Ms. Geragos, Ms. Comey is saying that, to the extent that you have documents, the purpose of which is to impeach the witness or even in the form of prior inconsistent statements, that you're going to first have to do the inquiry and try to get into evidence, that's not what she's talking about. If there is other stuff, then the concerns you raised would not seem to be at the forefront. And we did have a schedule where you were supposed to turn over documents. Understanding that you're marking exhibits in realtime, as you mark those exhibits, if there are any, why shouldn't you be required to turn those over, given the carve-outs Ms. Comey has identified?
MS. GERAGOS: Your Honor, Mr. Agnifilo would like to take it.
MR. AGNIFILO: So, this is all under the rubric of Rule 16. This is all matters of Rule 16, and Rule 16 doesn't recognize these carve-outs. Rule 16 talks about exhibits that are going to be used as part of the defense case in chief. The defense case in chief is when we call witnesses. That is the defense case in chief. The defense case in chief is not the cross-examination of a government witness. That being said, there are sound, practical reasons for doing exactly what your Honor is suggesting, and we're doing that. But the reason I add that is because we are not behind the eight ball on this. We have absolutely complied with Rule 16. As a practical matter, because we don't know -- I would be surprised if the government only has another three hours left. But whatever it is, we are marking exhibits in response to what has happened in the direct. I agree with your Honor, we will give them -- we will give everything that we have marked to the government before the cross-examination starts. We can do that. I'm looking over. I want to make logistically we can do that.
MS. GERAGOS: Yes. Yes. It's over-inclusive.
MR. AGNIFILO: So, logistically, we can do that. We are endeavoring to do that. We have started to do that. That all being said, I don't think Rule 16 requires that. But we don't have to have a Rule 16 argument, because we're willing to do it. We're willing to do it as, just a matter of practicality, to make things easier for the court, to make things easier for the government, quite frankly, and so that all the examinations go smoothly. That all being said, there is nothing in Rule 16 that requires that. Now, I am aware of certain cases from outside the Second Circuit, district court cases, I believe, that have said that when the defense offers exhibits, offers documents, puts them into evidence, to put up forward an alternative factual theory, aside from undermining the credibility of the witness or something like that, that there are some courts that have defined that, I think, errantly at the defense case in chief. So if that is what we're talking about, we disagree with that, with that legal assessment. But on a much more practical level, we are doing it anyway, and so we're going to continue to do it. The government has done things to make the trial easier that the rules don't require that they do. We recognize that. And we are going to do the same thing. So we are doing this feverishly. Luckily, we have a sizeable defense team. We think we can do it effectively, and we're in the process of doing that to make this trial run as smoothly as possible.
THE COURT: Ms. Comey, you've heard that. What do you want?
MS. COMEY: I want their exhibits, your Honor. I think they've already marked them, and I would like them now.
THE COURT: Meaning you're saying you want the exhibits, all of the exhibits?
MS. COMEY: All of the exhibits that they think they might show to the jury. I'll note that we marked --
THE COURT: For this witness?
MS. COMEY: For all of witnesses. I think that the court's order contemplated not having a trial by ambush. Mr. Agnifilo cited to the law that I was thinking of in my head when he said that Rule 16 doesn't require this. I want to look back at the cases and see if there are any within this circuit. But my understanding of the law is if the defense is seeking to affirmatively offer evidence on cross-examination, even during the government's case, if they want to start putting forward their defense during the government's case, they have to produce those exhibits in advance, the same way the government does. I'll also note that the government has over-marked exhibits. We have produced far more marked exhibits than we expect actually to offer, because if we think we might possibly offer something, we put a sticker on it and send it over to the defense so they are on notice and can raise any objection in advance. So, I want their exhibits now, please.
MR. AGNIFILO: Your Honor, can I do this? I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Well, no. Here is what I'm going to propose. We have a jury that's cooling its heels in the back.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes.
THE COURT: For today's purposes, you have indicated that before cross-examination, you're going to give over all the exhibits.
MR. AGNIFILO: Right.
THE COURT: And Ms. Ventura's cross-examination, if we even get there today, is going to take more than today.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes.
THE COURT: We're going to be back. So, what I'm going to do is take a look at Rule 16, which is one issue. Second, I'm going to look at the actual order which reflected the parties' agreement, by and large, on most of the issues concerning what there needed to be deadlines for and what those deadlines meant. So I'm going to take a look at those submissions. The only outstanding issue, Ms. Comey, would be these cases that you maybe haven't seen, but Mr. Agnifilo has done you a solid and identified them.
MS. COMEY: I remember reading cases on this, your Honor. I will try to find them.
THE COURT: If there are those cases, you don't need to put in a letter. Literally, someone can just e-mail the citation to me so I can take a look at them.
MS. COMEY: OK, your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll see what I can do to get clarity and give the parties clarity on this before the end of the day.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you.
MS. GERAGOS: The last thing, if we are going to turn them over at lunchtime, they do not go over the exhibits with Ms. Ventura. That's just -- that's a practical. We are giving these over to them. We're asking that they don't go over them with her.
MR. AGNIFILO: Can I add one thing to do that, Judge? The government and the defense are not similarly situated. They have the burden of proof. We don't. We don't have to go first and give the government the things that we are going to use as part of our cross-examination so that they could then prepare their witness. There is nothing and I think it would be unconstitutional, for one, and I don't know of any cases that say that, which is why Rule 16 is written the way it is. Rule 16 --
THE COURT: Why are we still -- I thought we had an agreement, I thought I had gotten us to an agreement at least for --
MR. AGNIFILO: I'm --
THE COURT: Cease fire.
MR. AGNIFILO: I'm snatching the feet from the jaws of victory, at least that's what I want to do. If we are good for now, we're good for now. I saw Ms. Comey was going to talk about how the defense and the government are the same, but we are not.
MS. COMEY: I don't think we are. I don't think we are, and that's why I don't think they have to give me anything they are going to show for impeachment or to refresh recollection. Just exhibits --
THE COURT: OK.
MS. COMEY: -- that they want to use to prove their case. I think we should be allowed to show those to any witnesses, the same way they can show our exhibits to any of their witnesses.
THE COURT: For present purposes, Mr. Agnifilo, you graciously agreed that, to the extent you've marked exhibits that don't fall into those categories, you can provide those over at the lunch break. Yes?
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: OK. And that's not with any provisos of what the government would do with those exhibits, because I can't tell the government what to do or not to do with exhibits that you've agreed to turn over to the government at that stage. So what they will do with those is what they will do with those, correct? Because if you're not agreeing to that, then you're not really agreeing to turning over those exhibits. You're saying we're not going to actually turn over those exhibits. Wait until cross-examination begins. If that is your position, you should tell me now.
MR. AGNIFILO: I think that has to be our position, Judge.
THE COURT: And --
MR. AGNIFILO: If cross-examination is to start after lunch, that's when they would get it. I do not think that we should be in a position of giving the government ideas about our defense while the witness is on direct examination.
THE COURT: OK. So, for today's purposes, since this issue wasn't previously raised and it wasn't previously litigated or addressed in connection with any scheduling order in this case, you should go ahead and turn over those exhibits whenever you see fit, but no later than before cross- examination begins. There are no limitations on what the government would be able to do with those exhibits once you turn those over, and we'll address this issue further at the end of the trial day so that we don't run into it as to any other witnesses, and we'll get final resolution.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, look, what we're talking about is a few hours.
MS. COMEY: I agree, your Honor, but this is gamesmanship, your Honor. And I would ask that exhibits that they do not turn over to us before the end of direct, not be admitted to the jury for any purpose other than impeachment. If there is anything that they want to admit for anything other than impeachment, they should have turned it over.
THE COURT: Let me ask you. If you only received four exhibits on April 27, why is this the first time we're hearing about this on May 14, in the morning, while we have a witness who is waiting in the back to continue her testimony?
MS. COMEY: Because we had been conferring and asking for marked exhibits.
THE COURT: That's not -- that seems -- Look, you can confer, but we're here to field these issues, and this is an issue that, if it was addressed and brought up to the court prior to trial, then we could have addressed all of this in a deliberate fashion and we would have had a clear rule that everyone would have applied. Now, this is being raised literally while the jury is sitting in the box, and so I need a current solution for today. And then I'll hear you and we'll figure out an actual solution that will apply for the rest of this trial, which is going to last for weeks.
MS. COMEY: Our solution for today, your Honor, is they produce them by the lunch break.
THE COURT: All right. Well, that's denied. We'll have those produced, at the latest, Mr. Agnifilo, before the commencement of cross-examination.
MR. AGNIFILO: Understood.
THE COURT: With no restrictions on their use by the government, and then we'll address this later in the day. If there are any cases that either side wants to submit that are relevant to this issue, you need to e-mail those to chambers during the trial day so that we don't have another day where this goes over and we don't know what the resolution is or what needs to be turned over. Because I know that you are all doing that work overnight. So, let's get moving on whatever work needs to be done.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, Judge. Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Comey?
MS. COMEY: I don't believe so, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Agnifilo, anything on your end?
MR. AGNIFILO: Nothing from us. Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Can we get Ms. Ventura back?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, there is an issue we need to raise at the lunch break. We don't need to raise it now, but before Ms. Ventura's cross begins. I'm sorry. There is another issue I was asked to raise.
THE COURT: That's OK.
MS. COMEY: Thank you.
MS. ESTEVAO: Your Honor, may we confer with the court reporter about the live feed?
THE COURT: Yes. Good morning, welcome back.
CASANDRA VENTURA: Thank you.
THE COURT: We'll wait for a couple minutes.
MS. JOHNSON: I'm ready, Judge.
MR. STEEL: Your Honor, may I quietly step out for just a moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STEEL: Thank you, sir.
(Pause)
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Please be seated. Welcome back, members of the jury. Thank you for being here on time. It helps thing runs smoothly here, and everyone here really appreciates it and knows how much of a hardship it is to get to the courthouse in the morning and dodging traffic and the subway and everything else that's out there, especially on a rainy day. We all really appreciate it. Ms. Ventura, you understand you're still under oath?
CASANDRA VENTURA: Yes. CASANDRA VENTURA, resumed.
THE COURT: Ms. Johnson, are you prepared to proceed?
MS. JOHNSON: I am, your Honor. Thank you. Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.