2-29-08
CR 05 5028.
Andrew Friedman.
Bob Bloom, Neil Fox, Briana Waters
the issue that Europe yesterday about Exhibit 745, which was a bank statement of Justin Solondz and whether it had been offered. Court reporter pulled testimony of Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Friedman referred to the same exhibit, same account. Bob Bloom raised an objection, went on issue about car rental, that's what I reviewed.
Mr. Bloom: I believe that was the issue exactly right. Well, we have a mistrial. Prosecution has made the car rental their centerpiece. Mr. Bartlett raised it, Mr. Friedman put it up on the screen -- -- we are questioning that. This is a critical time, we oppose curative instructions, and as that would highlight the issue. This damages the Briana Waters case, particularly because we do not know if it was put through the jury intentionally knowing that it was not admitted. We actually had the documents to -- Justin Solondz made a purchase with his card at Ralph's, too. Inappropriately call attention to the issue-- unringing a bell is not possible. We oppose a curative instruction.
Friedman: the government believed it was in evidence, if not we wouldn't have used it. We wouldn't have seeked to use it if we knew. It is serious to use, something not in evidence but no mistrial is in order. Curative instructions will suffice (These are not the drones you’re looking for). Refers more to Justin Solondz than Briana Waters. Instruct the jury not to consider what came from that.
Bloom: contrary to evidence. Not that important piece of evidence, car as centerpiece. Alleged $200, the flow of the $200, Justin Solondz to Briana Waters to Rob Corina. This is a very important piece of evidence. They say it nails Briana Waters, to say otherwise feels contrary. Totally unfair, the only answer is a mistrial. The government knows it wasn't right.
Judge: curative instruction. What does that mean, what does that mean. Grasping his straws. Stipulation of documents. Defense to object to that evidence when it came up. I don't believe the government knowingly submitted it. There is no reason for them to deliberately do it. I'm not going to support a mistrial; your objection doesn't carry the weight. The jury will decide. They can disregard that, and tell them how to disregard that. I'm denying a motion for a mistrial.
Bloom: there were a number of things, the Court referred to. I do still remember that. The fact is I did not make reference to that in my closing argument. I did say Justin Solondz was not on trial, but I could not refute Mr. Friedman so I couldn't have said that.
Friedman: Bloom's stipulation is correct. /stipulation authentic business records. Either side could object to the evidence. I believe Bartlett called up the evidence, because agent Halla was putting up the images for Bartlett.
Bloom: we agree that is true.
Judge: the jury has been instructed to do nothing until this issue is worked out.
Some exhibits were read, like the fingerprint card. Stipulations which were read.
Fox: I don't think the stipulations should go back to the jury, is in lieu of testimony.
Friedman: there is no reason to give them more than they need.
Judge: I hope you had a good night. There is one final instruction. During closing arguments Exhibit 745/bank records of Justin Solondz are not included in the evidence. So you should disregard that portion of the closing arguments.
-- the jury leaves --
Fox: exhibits offered and refused I returned to the party. He exhibit offered and refused should stay in the evidence. Stay with the custody of the court.
Judge: no.
Fox: objections to the verdict form, which we received after the instructions. Beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury find at the b.a.r.d…???… this does not require unanimity of all 12 jurors for conspiracy.
Judge: noted.
Bloom: the jury if they are uncertain of particular testimony. They cancall for a reread of that testimony in case they are uncertain. I'm going to wait to see what happens before offering.
Judge: I don't do it that way.
Defense: at one point, one of the prosecutors indicated that we had the ability to call witnesses, which they named. They have shifted the burden of proof. Number one: mistrial because effort was made to shift the burden of proof. Number two: we wish that the jury be instructed that my suggestion that the defense have the burden of proof.
There were misstatements of testimony by Mr. Bartlett. I would like the opportunity to address the jury of those. I don't have the list in front of me. My recollection, but it may not be correct, but Mr. Bartlett implied. The indictment count six Miss Waters could be convicted if all she did was true. (????)
Prosecution: there is clearly no of question of shifting the burden. I prefaced it by saying that we have the burden.
(Vitriolic Bullshit).
His memory is in error. You just can't find that she………..
Judge: Mr. Bloom can go through the record, and we can address it at that time. Shifting a burden, I will leave it to you to find that out. We will let the jury go. I-5 South is the way we will go. I don't have a habit of nodding off (bullshit, a nine year old was able to tell that you were sleeping) so I don't think...
Defense: can we have a copy of it?
Prosecution: I don't know.
Judge: you have to make a case for it.
Defense: given the immediacy of the need, can we shortcut it?
Judge: no -- when something is submitted, may have to bless it from their coffers
Bartlett: I would ask if the court took out Bloom's questions of Dale Mann. He got out of his witness, but it was not a bomb. And clearly violated the court's ruling.
Summary: Bloom argues he did not violate the courts ruling. There is some banter back and forth. But in the end Dale Mann’s testimony remains. The judge says that the prosecution and defense must remain within 15 minutes of the courtroom for the remainder of the day. At 4:15 p.m. We are called back to the courtroom. The jury enters. The judge inquirers, if they are close. Several of the jurors smile as if they are not close. We remain hopeful that this will end well for the Waters family.