Document 459

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 43 1 LalWmaxC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------x Telephone Conference New York, N.Y. October 21, 2021 12:00 p.m. Before: HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge APPEARANCES DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: LARA E. POMERANTZ ALISON G. MOE ANDREW ROHRBACH MAURENE R. COMEY Assistant United States Attorneys BOBBI C. STERNHEIM Attorney for Defendant -and- COHEN & GRESSER LLP BY: CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL -and- HADDON, MORGAN and FOREMAN, P.C. BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA Also Present: Rigoberto Landers Susan Yee Foon Rhonda Mayers-Best Thomas Mixon SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006973 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 2 of 43 2 LalWmaxC (Case called; appearances noted) 1 THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge Nathan. 2 We are here for a pretrial conference in this matter. 3 The case is scheduled to commence the jury selection process on November 4, trial to commence on November 29. 4 The primary purpose of today's conference is to go over jury selection matters and logistics. I'll also address the request to seal the proposed questionnaire and voir dire submitted by the parties, as I indicated I would in my order docketed yesterday. 5 As a preliminary matter, let me note that we are proceeding telephonically today. Counsel, my view is that, under Rule 43, we need not be in person with Ms. Maxwell present for today's proceeding. We do have Ms. Maxwell on the phone, of course. I do want to make sure counsel agree with that view and have no objection to proceeding remotely by phone conference today. 6 Ms. Pomerantz. 7 MS. POMERANTZ: The government has no objection, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. 9 MS. STERNHEIM: The defense has no objection. Thank you. 10 THE COURT: OK. Thank you. 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006974 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 3 of 43 3 LalWmaxC All right. We will proceed. A few preliminary matters. I did provide public access to this proceeding via a phone line that can accommodate up to 4,000 callers, who are in listen-only mode. I do remind anyone calling in and listening that federal law prohibits the recording or rebroadcasting of any portion of this proceeding, and violation of that rule can result in monetary or other sanctions. Another preliminary matter, as I indicated in my order, Dkt. No. 344, I will ensure access to this proceeding and all proceedings in the case for alleged victims as well as for family members of Ms. Maxwell, and the District Executive's Office has coordinated with defense counsel to ensure access to this call by family members of Ms. Maxwell. The D.E. has also coordinated with the victim coordinator unit in the U.S. Attorney's Office to ensure access for any alleged victims who wish to be present. My thanks to the D.E.'s Office for facilitating those arrangements. On that front, I will note that I have asked representatives of the District Executive's Office and the jury department to be on the phone today in case I need their assistance in handling any logistics that may come up, although I do believe I have a firm handle on the arrangements. I've been working hard with the folks in the clerk's office, the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006975 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 4 of 43 4 LalWmaxC jury department, the D.E.'S Office to make sure we are ready for the upcoming proceeding. As I've noted, the primary purpose of today's conference is to go through the questionnaire and voir dire procedures for jury selection. I've received the parties' joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire. The defendant filed a motion regarding the voir dire procedures, and I've considered those submissions as well, Dkt. No. 341, and the government's response at 355. I've also, in coming to resolution as to how to handle these procedures, considered examples of questionnaires and voir dire used for jury selection in many high-profile matters by my colleagues in this district and other districts. I've reviewed and studied case law on the subject, including Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1984); Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010); U.S. v. King, 140 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1998); and ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2004). And of course, all of this must be considered in conjunction with the district's COVID-19 protocols. As to that, as I noted, I've worked closely and extensively with the very hardworking folks in the clerk's office, including the jury department and the D.E.'S Office, to map out plans for how to effectuate my determinations as to the best way to proceed under all of these factors and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006976 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 5 of 43 5 LalWmaxC considerations. Taking all of that into account, I'll describe now how we will proceed. As I've indicated, we will do a screening questionnaire before jury selection. That questionnaire will prescreen for what I see as the major for-cause strike issues in the case. So, for example, the trial's length and schedule, a juror's personal knowledge of the parties, extent of a juror's awareness of publicity about the case and the defendant, and any bias due to publicity or as a result of the nature of the charges. This sort of questionnaire is, of course, very common in high-profile cases. I transmitted my draft questionnaire to counsel yesterday, and we'll discuss it shortly. As they typically do, the clerk's office will randomly assign juror numbers and create a corresponding list of names and juror numbers for the prospective jurors. That list will go to counsel and the Court for use throughout jury selection. On the questionnaire itself, jurors will be identified only by their assigned juror number. We will refer to the jurors in court throughout the process by their juror numbers only. The jury department will administer the questionnaire in morning and afternoon panels on November 4th, 5th and 12th. The procedure between questionnaires and voir dire will be as follows: SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 6 of 43 LalWmaxC 1 The jury department will provide the completed questionnaires to the U.S. Attorney's Office for copying. The U.S. Attorney's Office will provide copies to the defense. 2 I've been informed by the jury department that this is the standard practice for the administrative tasks, but certainly let me know if either side has a different proposal to effectuate that administrative task of copying the completed questionnaires. 3 After reviewing the completed questionnaires, counsel must then confer in good faith and jointly submit to the Court four lists: 4 No. 1, prospective jurors that both sides agree should proceed to voir dire; 5 Two, prospective jurors that both sides agree should be excused; 6 Three, prospective jurors that the defense but not the government believes should be excused; and 7 Fourth, prospective jurors that the government but not the defense believes should be excused. 8 I want to pause for a moment because I heard a chime. 9 Ms. Williams, I just want to confirm that we have Ms. Maxwell and counsel and the court reporter still on the line. 10 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Yes, Judge. That's someone coming into the room. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006978 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 7 of 43 LalWmaxC 1 THE COURT: OK. Thank you. 2 Those are the four lists. 3 For the questionnaires completed on November 4th and 4 5th, those lists will be due to the Court via email by November 5 7. For questionnaires completed on November 12, the lists will 6 be due by email by November 13, and that's so I can let the 7 jury department know who to call back for voir dire. 8 I am setting a placeholder conference, an in-person 9 placeholder conference for November 15 at 9:30 a.m. to resolve 10 disputes, as needed, with respect to for-cause strikes based on 11 the questionnaire. 12 That's the questionnaire process. 13 I'll turn now to voir dire. 14 On November 16th through 19th, if we need all of those 15 days, I will then conduct voir dire of the individual jurors 16 who have been brought back, asking appropriate follow-up 17 questions based on questionnaire responses, some additional 18 questions more appropriately asked during oral voir dire, and 19 background information that will enable the lawyers to gather 20 substantial information in aid of the exercise of informed 21 peremptory challenges. And yesterday, I sent the parties my 22 draft voir dire, which we will also discuss in a moment. 23 I will conduct this as one-on-one voir dire with each 24 prospective juror in the presence of the parties and with 25 public access to the proceedings. We will do this one juror at SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006979 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 8 of 43 8 LalWmaxC a time, because of Covid-related space limitations, to streamline the process in light of a likelihood of high a number of sidebars which would otherwise be required, and to ensure that the comments of one juror do not infect the pool. The other jurors will be held in a different courtroom on the same floor and brought over to the courtroom we will be in one at a time. I am not going to permit attorney-conducted voir dire. As a general matter, neither I nor most of my colleagues permit attorney-conducted voir dire. The factors related to this case point strongly against deviation from that standard practice. That doesn't mean counsel can't have input into potential follow-up questions. As in any voir dire, if you want to propose a particular follow-up question, you can tell me and I'll decide whether or not to ask the proposed question and how best to phrase it in a neutral and appropriate way. As noted, I will permit public access to the voir dire questioning. Prospective jurors will be referred to only by their juror numbers. In order to comply with the district's COVID-19 protocols, the public will be able to access the voir dire questioning via overflow rooms in the courthouse. The overflow rooms will have live feeds of the proceeding. Two pool reporters will be permitted in the courtroom proper. In-house press will be able to view the proceedings from press rooms, which, like the public overflow rooms, will SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006980 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 9 of 43 9 have live feeds of the proceedings. The D.E.'S Office will facilitate these arrangements, and I am grateful in advance to them as well as for the thought that they've already put into this process. That's how we'll work. There are some deviations from my normal practices certainly in light of the many considerations in this case. The COVID-19 protocols make spacing tricky. The procedures I've described are the best way to screen the necessary number of jurors for this type of high-profile case in an efficient manner considering the space and time limitations that we'll be working with. We're also all aware that there's been intense media and public interest in this case, as the defendant's motion highlights, and I expect certainly will continue. Moreover, this trial is dealing with sensitive and controversial issues; namely, the alleged sexual assault and sex trafficking of minors. To impanel a jury that can fairly and impartially consider these charges, I'll have to ask personal questions about the prospective jurors' experience with these issues. I've carefully taken all of these factors into account. Based on this careful consideration of all of the relevant factors, the procedures I've just described will protect the health of the parties and prospective jurors during the continuing pandemic; help protect juror privacy; help ensure juror candor and honesty; and, ultimately, help to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006981 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 10 of 43 10 ensure the selection of a fair and impartial jury. At the same time, these procedures will ensure the First Amendment rights to public access, as is necessary and required by law. I'm going to pause here and ask if counsel have any questions about what I've described so far. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. The government, I'm happy to raise certain questions we have regarding the names and locations to be supplied in the oral voir dire, as the government has certain proposals that it would like to set forth for the Court. I'm happy to do that now or at another point if the Court would like. THE COURT: Do these proposals relate to the government's motion that was just filed but not fully briefed, or are those separate concerns? MS. POMERANTZ: It relates to the government's motion regarding privacy and dignity of certain minor victims in this case, specifically relating to the request that victims and witnesses, certain victims and witnesses testify under pseudonyms or their first names only. THE COURT: Right. I think I have to get briefing on that motion. Needless to say I'm not prepared to rule on that yet, so to the extent that the proposals you want to suggest had a resolution of that motion, I think we need to wait. But SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006982 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 11 of 43 LalWmaxC let me say that I think we have time to resolve that because those matters I don't think need to be dealt with for purposes of the questionnaire but for purposes of the oral voir dire. Do you agree with that, Ms. Pomerantz? MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, I agree with that, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. Anything else you want to raise based on the process I've described so far? MS. POMERANTZ: No. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. While we appreciate the questioning of the jurors one at a time, we do have a concern with regard to very sensitive issues being raised in the presence of media and other public, other people in the public who may have access to this. I would like to know how the Court is going to handle that. THE COURT: Well, I think, as in any voir dire, there are sometimes instances in which something slightly different might be required, but I guess without knowing specifically what the issue is or what the specific concern is, I don't know that I can address it writ large. If you want to give an example, I'm happy to hear that. MS. STERNHEIM: Sure. With regard to personal experience that may have bearing on the subject matter of the charges, that is particularly sensitive information. I think that it has a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006983 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 12 of 43 LalWmaxC 1 chilling effect for any juror who, under oath, is going to have 2 to answer very personal questions, let alone to have to answer 3 those questions in a public forum with press being present and 4 other members of the public viewing this from an overflow room. 5 THE COURT: My view is we can deal with those 6 situations kind of one at a time, depending on what emerges 7 from the particular questionnaire that we're looking at at the 8 time. As an example, I have conferred with Judge Donnelly, who 9 went through similar voir dire questioning recently in the 10 Eastern District, and there was public access to the individual 11 questioning, and I think all of that was managed in a way that 12 everybody felt comfortable with. 13 I think we start with, as the law requires, as the 14 First Amendment requires and case law requires, the presumption 15 of public access. I will take into account, as need be, any 16 specific requests for deviation in a tailored and narrow way to 17 ensure juror candor, protection of privacy, and the like. 18 That's my overall approach. I don't think we need to 19 deal with it in any broader way now, but tell me if you 20 disagree. 21 MS. STERNHEIM: I do not agree. We do not need to 22 deal with it now. I just wanted to express our concerns on 23 that issue. 24 THE COURT: OK. Anything else, Ms. Sternheim? 25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. Just a moment, please? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 13 of 43 LalWmaxC 1 THE COURT: Go ahead. 2 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, at this point do we know 3 how many jurors will be summoned and how many the Court is 4 planning to select for the final voir dire? 5 THE COURT: Yes. What I can tell you -- and again, I 6 just want to say an enormous thanks to the jury department, who 7 I've been working with closely on this for months, as you can 8 imagine. The return rate in the Covid era has gone up and down 9 on summonses, but we have estimated our ability to administer 10 the questionnaire over the three days in a morning and 11 afternoon panel each day; the goal was 600 jurors, if we need 12 it. 13 That's the answer to question one. 14 Question two I was going to get to the exercise of 15 peremptories in a moment. 16 I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood. 17 What was question No. 2, Ms. Sternheim? 18 MS. STERNHEIM: It was how many you are going to 19 ultimately have us select to sit. 20 THE COURT: Yes. OK. I thought I had that in a prior 21 order, but my intention is to sit six alternates, so we'll have 22 a jury of 18. 23 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. 24 THE COURT: OK. Are there other questions on what was 25 discussed so far, Ms. Sternheim? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006985 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 14 of 43 1 MS. STERNHEIM: Does the Court know how many will be 2 in each sitting, or are you just dividing up the 600 by the 3 number of sittings? 4 THE COURT: They've put out a certain number of 5 summonses with -- 6 Let me just back up. The need to do it over several 7 days, the need to do it in panels and the limits on the numbers 8 are dramatically affected by Covid, because we have six-foot 9 spacing requirements under the district protocols. They've 10 worked hard to maximize the number of people who can sit in 11 what will be two rooms, two large rooms, with sufficient 12 spacing. All of those rooms require staffing, of course, so I 13 believe that we're talking about 100 people per panel. 14 Let me just get confirmation of that. 15 MS. MAYERS-BEST: My name is Rhonda Mayers-Best. I'm 16 the jury administrator. 17 THE COURT: Just a second, Rhonda. Thank you. I'll 18 let you know if I need you, and I appreciate that. 19 And Rhonda, you can confirm you've summoned 20 anticipating 100 people per panel. Is that correct, Rhonda? 21 MS. MAYERS-BEST: Correct. 22 THE COURT: OK. 23 Ms. Sternheim, we'll have 100 people in the morning 24 each day, 100 people in the afternoon each day, over the course 25 of three days. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006986 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 15 of 43 15 1 MS. MAYERS-BEST: Correct. 2 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. 3 The other questions I can wait until the Court addresses other protocol. 4 5 THE COURT: OK. 6 And let me just pause. 7 8 The next thing I wanted to talk to you about goes to the exercise of peremptories and the number of qualified jurors that I will, number of jurors I'll seek to qualify. 9 10 Once we get a sufficient number of qualified jurors through the practice I've just described, the parties will exercise their peremptories, of course, and what I'd like counsels' input on at this time is a timing question. I've thought a lot about this. I think we've got two potential options as to timing of the exercise of peremptories, depending on how quickly we move through the voir dire process and get a sufficient number of qualified jurors. 11 12 If we use every day, including the 19th, then I think we only have one option, but if we're done before that, which I think there's a good chance of, then I think we have two options: either November 19 or November 29. 13 14 So let me just back up. 15 16 As a preliminary matter, by my count, I need to qualify 40 jurors. Consistent with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 12 primary jurors, with respect to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006987 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 16 of 43 16 LalWmaxC that, the defense gets ten peremptories; the government gets six. As I said, I'll seat six alternates. Under the rule, that's three additional peremptories per side for the alternates. If my math is right, that adds up to 40. To have a cushion heading into peremptory challenges, it's my plan -- again, time dependent -- to try to qualify at least 50 jurors, somewhere in the 50 to 60 range. So then the question is do we have that panel of qualified jurors come back on the 19th and exercise peremptories, or do we have them come back on the 29th? Either way, I anticipate that once we have that panel of qualified jurors come back, I'd ask some very basic preliminary questions -- do any jurors wish to amend answers? Confirm that they've not read or researched about the case, we'd deal with any issues along those lines, and then the parties would exercise the peremptories and all the others would be excused. If we do that on the 19th and finish the process, I'd inform the 18 that they've been selected as jurors, remind them very clearly of all the instructions and restrictions that apply, and direct them to return on the morning of the 29th. On that date, I'd swear them in, give them standard preliminary instructions, and we head to openings, straight into opening statements. Alternatively, if we were to wait for that final SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006988 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 17 of 43 17 LalWmaxC process until the 29th, I'd bring that panel of 50 to 60 qualified prospective jurors back. The parties would exercise -- I'd do that initial questioning to ensure no final issues. The parties would exercise their peremptories, and then I would excuse the unused or struck jurors, swear in our 18, give the instructions, and we'd get on our way. I will say that I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. I'll also say that I believe both will be logistically possible, although the 29th is not yet totally certain, because jury selection in other cases will go forward on that day, occupying the larger spaces, and it impacts both available space and staff resources. But I believe we can work out the logistics. But before I finalize either way, I wanted to hear the parties' views. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. The government appreciates the Court's thoughtfulness on this. The government's view would be that November 19 would be strongly preferred to -- and I would note, your Honor, that because there are witnesses traveling out of state, and in light of Covid-related issues, having a firm start date, a date when we know witnesses will start to be put on the stand, that's very helpful for planning purposes. THE COURT: Yes, we will start on the 29th. There is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006989 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 18 of 43 18 LalWmaxC no doubt about that. I think what we're talking about is a fairly limited process that requires, of course, checking in the individuals. But we'll lose a little bit of time, to be sure. Is that the government's view and the basis for that view. MS. POMERANTZ: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. The defense would request that challenges be exercised on the 29th for the following reason: There is at least a ten-day gap from the last scheduled day of jury selection until the start of the trial on the 29th. Significantly, prospective jurors will be celebrating Thanksgiving, a holiday that most have not celebrated in more than a year. It is likely that the topic of jury service and this case may come up. Views may be espoused, especially if people know that a family member or friend has been summoned to jury service, and it is very unlikely and very uncomfortable for a prospective juror to have to remove themselves from the Thanksgiving table or the venue to avoid being involved in that conversation. I would say that in an abundance of caution, that the better approach would be to do it on the 29th. It will not SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006990 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 19 of 43 19 LalWmaxC take that long. We will be ready to strike, but your Honor will need to get to see whether, in that interval, there has been any impact on the ability of the panel that comes in to serve fairly and impartially. THE COURT: All right. Any final thoughts, Ms. Pomerantz? MS. POMERANTZ: Nothing further from the government. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I will consider it. You've all articulated factors I've considered, and I will see about the logistics issue, and I'll see if those can be worked out so that we have the option for either. And then what I may do is wait and see where we are as we head into the voir dire process before coming to final resolution. But to the extent I decide to do that, I will let you know, and I thank you for your input. OK. I'm now ready to turn to the sealing issue, but let me give both sides an opportunity to raise anything, to ask any other questions about what I've described, or to raise any concerns or points for further consideration. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. Nothing further from the government. THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: Nothing other than some preliminary SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006991 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 20 of 43 LalWmaxC questions about which courtroom we will ultimately be using. But I think that getting to the issue of sealing is more important. THE COURT: OK. And I think I can answer the other logistic questions, probably. All right. As I've noted, the defense, without objection from the government, requests that the parties' joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire be sealed. I guess my first question, just for clarification, Ms. Sternheim, is whether that request extends to the Court's draft or what will ultimately be the final blank questionnaire and anticipated voir dire. MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the answer is yes, and if you'd like me to give my reasons, I'm glad to. THE COURT: Yes. First I wanted to know whether you've consented to that, and I'll hear you. I assume whatever the reasons are it would apply to all. But I do want to hear, and I need to hear very specifically, are you seeking particular redactions, or what is the concern? And to the extent you have any authorities for the proposition that you seal proposed documents like this and the Court's draft in anticipation, I would certainly take that. But it's my understanding, and research indicates, that they are typically docketed. I've certainly always docketed them in the many cases I've tried. But let me hear specifically what the issue SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006992 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 21 of 43 LalWmaxC 1 is, Ms. Sternheim. 2 MS. STERNHEIM: OK. The documents, all four of 3 them -- the two questionnaires, the parties' and the Court's, 4 as well as the voir dire questions -- contain references to 5 this case, names of participants. Any person who is summoned 6 for jury service, they likely connect their summons with any 7 press coverage there may be with regards to the questionnaire 8 and the jury voir dire questions and this case. 9 Until the prospective jurors complete their 10 questionnaires, they may read coverage, search the media. They 11 are under no obligation or requirement to refrain from that, 12 and we're concerned that that will further have a diluting 13 effect on our ability to seat a fair and impartial jury. We 14 have no problem whatsoever at the moment the jury is sworn, 15 after peremptories have been exercised, that the Court place on 16 the public record all of those documents. This is a procedure 17 that we think can ensure a fair trial for both parties in light 18 of extraordinary media coverage in this case. 19 THE COURT: I need more specifics. You said 20 references to this case, names of participants. The docket now 21 and going forward, as more filings come in, is going to contain 22 names related to this case, names of participants. All of that 23 information is part of the docket in this case, to be sure. 24 That's No. 1. So No. 1 is I don't see how those 25 factors in the questionnaire are particularly different from SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006993 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 22 of 43 22 1 any prejudice analysis from other materials on the docket. 2 And No. 2, I'm still failing to see what the prejudice 3 is. If you have a grade school math test and you get the 4 questions in advance, you surely have some sort of advantage. 5 To the extent we have a juror who has some awareness of the 6 questionnaires because it's reported in the media in some way, 7 they will have to truthfully tell us that in the questionnaire 8 and the voir dire process. We would be able to explore that in 9 any way, and it's just unclear to me what prejudice you're 10 seeing as a result of that. 11 I'll hear you on those two points. 12 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, I think this is an 13 extraordinary case, and there has been no ability for the Court 14 or the government and certainly not the defense to control any 15 of the vast media coverage in this case, which has 16 significantly prejudiced our client. 17 While things are placed on the public record, and 18 rightly so, this is a situation that is somewhat different. 19 Giving jurors the opportunity to view the questionnaire before 20 they come to court to fill it out is like a take-home exam and 21 they can fill out all the answers and do all the research and 22 decide what answers they want to put on those papers. 23 I think that there's an opportunity for people to be 24 motivated to want to sit on this jury for a variety of reasons, 25 some of which I have expressed in other filings that have been SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006994 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 23 of 43 23 made public. I think in this case the Court has the supervisory power and the discretion to make sure that every protocol is put in place to ensure that a jury is seated that is fair and impartial. Perhaps I've been in too many cases where jurors have said one thing and many things they don't say, and you can ask as many questions as you want, but we have to rely on the candor of individuals who come to serve. I do not think that there is a great hardship or denial of the public's right to know when the Court has just said that the press can be present during the questioning, and that would be the day of the jurors actually being in court. But I think to place the questionnaire and the voir dire questions on the public record and have them reported in the press, a situation that the Court cannot control, will have a very negative effect on both the parties in this case, but most significantly on the party that has been most damaged, that being Ms. Maxwell. THE COURT: OK. Any authorities, any specific authorities, and I mean examples of any other -- there are lots of significant high-profile cases that have occurred in this district and others. Any examples, and I don't presume any judge in such a case could control press coverage. I don't even know what that would look like, but you have to try the case as the law requires in a public trial, and surely there are high-profile cases in this modern era, where you could name SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006995 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 24 of 43 24 LalWmaxC an example in which a judge didn't docket these materials in advance. MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I would just respond that, yes, there have been high-profile cases, but in federal court, I am not aware of a high-profile case that has alleged minor victims, whose identities are sought to be protected. I think that this is an extraordinary case. It has garnered more media attention than any of the other high-profile cases, and we are urging the Court to exercise its discretion and supervisory power. We will provide to the Court any authority that we have on this topic at the close of business today. THE COURT: We'll see about that. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. In conferring with the defense about the parties' joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire, the defense shared concerns with the government regarding press coverage prejudicing the jury selection process, and so the defense asked the government to file under seal, which the government, as your Honor knows, the government did. Respectfully, the government submits that because this is the defense's request, it is up to the defense to justify the sealing request, and the government defers to the Court's judgment. THE COURT: Do you continue to not oppose, or do you oppose? Obviously, it's their motion, so it's their burden. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006996 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 25 of 43 25 LalWmaxC I'm asking the government's position. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, we defer to the Court on this. THE COURT: I'll take that as you continue not to oppose. OK, Ms. Pomerantz? That's the last position stated, and you're not changing that view, as I hear you. Correct? MS. POMERANTZ: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: I am prepared to rule on this. The request to file the joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire under seal as well as the Court's proposed questionnaire, which the government does not oppose, has been requested by letter and now argued here. Several news organizations have opposed the request. I do conclude that the defendant has failed to justify sealing the proposed voir dire and questionnaire. First, there's no privacy interest in a blank questionnaire, like the kind of interest that is articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' sole rationale for sealing the submission is to at a general level avoid media coverage that may prejudice the jury selection process. The jurors are sworn to give true and complete answers to the questionnaire and voir dire. I will be individually, one-on-one, questioning the jurors, and with the parties present, I feel confident that I can discern any clear dishonesty. This is not just going to be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006997 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 26 of 43 26 LalWmaxC a summary voir dire; it will be probing. Even if a juror were somehow exposed to a specific media report on the questionnaire, the juror would be sworn to report that exposure. The questionnaire and voir dire are designed to unearth that kind of prior exposure and any resulting potential bias. Nor is it clear what prejudice results from that possibility. As I said, I am not persuaded that in the off chance there's a juror who has the questionnaire or a media reporter has the questionnaire in advance and fails to disclose that, it's somehow prejudiced in their response to a question. If a juror's going to lie and be dishonest, we will smoke that out, and the fact of this questionnaire being publicly docketed is not going to increase or decrease any such likelihood. Moreover, as I said, the proposed exact questionnaires are in my experience regularly docketed, including in comparably high-profile cases. Again, in Judge Donnelly's case just very recently, so similar nature of charges, similar high-publicity media attention, in an age of social media and the like, she docketed the proposed her addressed questionnaire in advance of jury selection, as I understand it. And I'm not aware of counterexamples. Lastly, defense does not articulate any likely prejudice that distinguishes this from the public docketing of other pretrial materials already on the docket or that will be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006998 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 27 of 43 27 on the docket as litigation in advance of trial continues. For these reasons, I deny the defendant's request to seal the proposed voir dire and questionnaire. They should be docketed by the end of the week, and my chambers will do the same with my draft as well. All right. With that resolved, I would like to turn to the specifics of my draft and hear, with the background now of how we'll proceed and opportunity to have reviewed those drafts in advance, if there are issues to raise, specific objections to my draft questionnaire and voir dire, which I transmitted to the parties yesterday. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. The government has no objection to the Court's draft questionnaire and voir dire. THE COURT: OK. Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, Judge. Although we would have preferred a more fulsome questionnaire, containing a larger percentage of the questions that we requested, we do have a few requests that we would ask the Court to consider. THE COURT: OK. MS. STERNHEIM: And if you'd just give me a moment so that I can get that document? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006999 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 28 of 43 1 THE COURT: Sure. 2 MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize. 3 Judge, I apologize. There's some ringing in the phone. 4 phone. 5 I just would like, if the Court would permit me -- I'm not able to find the document, but I would ask that 6 Mr. Everdell be able to speak on this issue. 7 8 THE COURT: OK. 9 MS. STERNHEIM: Very brief. 10 THE COURT: OK. 11 I will ask my deputy if Mr. Everdell can be unmuted, please. 12 13 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I'm prepared to proceed. I've found the document. 14 15 THE COURT: Thanks. 16 MS. STERNHEIM: OK? 17 THE COURT: I think whatever you're doing when you turn away from the phone, Ms. Sternheim, may create that feedback. 18 19 MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize. I apologize. 20 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 MS. STERNHEIM: Very briefly, we would ask for the following inclusions in the Court's questionnaire. With regard to No. 24(b), we would ask that the Court include, and please include, the crimes that were involved. 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007000 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 29 of 43 29 LalWmaxC 1 THE COURT: OK. That is a follow-up in the voir dire, I believe. Let me double-check. 2 MS. STERNHEIM: It is, Judge, but we thought that the questionnaire might be a place where the juror would be more open and confortable. 3 THE COURT: I will consider that and let you know. 4 MS. STERNHEIM: With regard to 31 and 32(c), we would ask for the inclusion "or the former acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss." 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 Ms. Pomerantz, any objection? 7 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government isn't -- (Persistent feedback) 8 THE COURT: I'm not sure if it's you, and I apologize if it's not, but please, to the extent that you're muting your line or moving it in some way that's creating that feedback -- I'm not sure, again, if it's you, but that seemed to be the pattern. Let's see if we can hold still. 9 Ms. Pomerantz, let's try again. 10 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. The government -- (Persistent feedback) 11 THE COURT: It's not working. I'm hoping that the tech folks working with Ms. Williams can help us correct this. Everybody mute for a moment. Everybody mute their SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007001 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 30 of 43 LalWmaxC 1 lines. 2 (Persistent feedback) 3 THE COURT: I think we've muted everyone. 4 Ms. Williams, can you indicate by text whether you can hear me. 5 hear me. 6 OK. And now I'll ask, Ms. Pomerantz, are you able to speak now? 7 8 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: All right. I think we've done that so I'm going to have Ms. Williams please keep everyone muted until I call on them. That seems, hopefully, to be able to resolve the issue. 12 13 Go ahead, Ms. Pomerantz. 14 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. 15 The government is not aware of any reason why Audrey Strauss's name would come up at trial, so the government doesn't understand the basis for the inclusion. 18 THE COURT: All right. 19 I'll ask for Ms. Sternheim to be unmuted, please, and then mute Ms. Pomerantz while -- 21 Go ahead, Ms. Sternheim. 22 MS. STERNHEIM: I am unmuted. And Judge, I just want you to know I have not moved my phone, so I do not think that I contributed to the problem before. 25 THE COURT: OK. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007002 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 31 of 43 31 LalWmaxC 1 MS. STERNHEIM: But I'm glad it's cleared up. 2 THE COURT: I apologize for my own efforts at technological problem solving. 3 4 MS. STERNHEIM: I appreciate that, Judge. 5 Previously, with regard to the document, the Court 6 referenced the fact that there have been many documents filed 7 on the record that the public may have seen, and up until last 8 week, every single document filed by the government bore the 9 name of acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New 10 York, Audrey Strauss. So to the extent that people have read 11 those documents or seen the press conference, I think it is 12 relevant and in no way prejudices the jury at all. In fact, it 13 provides for the smoking out of any jurors who may know 14 Ms. Strauss or have negative feelings toward her, which would 15 be impugned to the government. 16 THE COURT: Thank you. 17 Ms. Pomerantz. 18 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. 19 That explanation was helpful for us to understand. We 20 don't object, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: All right. We will add a line that says 22 something like "or the former acting U.S. Attorney for the 23 Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss." 24 What else, Ms. Sternheim? 25 MS. STERNHEIM: 32(d), we would ask that Alexander SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007003 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 32 of 43 32 LalWmaxC Rossmiller be included. We believe his name will come up during the course of the trial, and he is a member of the U.S. Attorney's Office. THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: The government, again, isn't aware of any reason why his name would come up at trial, and so the government submits that it's not necessary to include him in the questionnaire. THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm not going to resolve that now. Since his name may come up, to be decided shortly, I don't see any prejudice, so I will allow it. We will add Alexander Rossmiller to the list of past -- or with any of the assistant United States attorneys, we could say "who have been involved with prosecuting this case." OK, Ms. Sternheim? MS. STERNHEIM: And the last, your Honor, has to do with No. 44. THE COURT: OK. MS. STERNHEIM: We would ask that you include the word "protested." I can read it fully if that's more helpful. THE COURT: Go ahead. MS. STERNHEIM: Would that help? THE COURT: Yes, please. MS. STERNHEIM: OK. "Have you or a family member ever lobbied, petitioned, protested, or worked in any other manner SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007004 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 33 of 43 33 LalWmaxC for or against any laws or regulations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse, or sexual harassment generally, or supported organizations that seek to address sex abuse or sexual harassment generally? THE COURT: So you've changed the question beyond inserting "protested." MS. STERNHEIM: That's correct. THE COURT: Let me ask you to give that to me again. MS. STERNHEIM: Of course. "Have you or any family member ever lobbied, petitioned, protested, or worked in any other manner for or against any laws or regulations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse, or sexual harassment generally, or supported organizations that seek to address sex abuse or sexual harassment generally?" THE COURT: Just a moment. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. The government doesn't have an issue with adding the word "protested," but I would submit that the additional language proposed by the defense makes the question a bit vague, and I think the Court's question, as framed, captures sufficient information and should get, I think, several responses from prospective jurors. THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, I will accept "protested"; SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007005 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 34 of 43 34 LalWmaxC I think that's a helpful addition. I'm not sure what is gained, other than some potential confusion, out of the additional language you're suggesting. MS. STERNHEIM: Well, one word that is lacking in that first part is "support," and we believe it's important to identify individuals who have been supporters or involved in the Me Too or Times Up movements. I don't think the question as originally stated is broad enough to do that. THE COURT: Just a moment. How about "Have you or a family member ever supported, petitioned, protested, or worked in any other manner for or against any laws or regulations or organizations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse, or sexual harassment?" Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. That would suffice. THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: That's fine with the government. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. We'll make that change. Anything else, Ms. Sternheim? MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, if I may, in light of the issue raised by the defense on 32(d), the government would request that as to 32(e) additional names of defense attorneys SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007006 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 35 of 43 35 LalWmaxC who are representing or have represented the defendant be included. THE COURT: OK. Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: I'm not sure who the government is referring to. The counsel of record are appearing at this conference. No one else has been a member of the defense team. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I'm happy to respond to that. Mark Cohen is on the docket in this case, and David Marcus has also represented the defendant in connection with her various appeals. THE COURT: Right. And I've written about the extent to which Mr. Marcus is obligated to follow the relevant rules that apply to the defense in this case. I'm inclined, Ms. Sternheim, to agree for similar reasons to the inclusion of Mr. Rossmiller and include Mr. Cohen and Mr. Marcus. MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I don't mean to draw the distinction that it is correct that at some point Mark Cohen was counsel who put in a notice of appearance. Mr. Marcus has not put in a notice of appearance. He was only coupled in when the government took issue with something that he had written that we had not endorsed. THE COURT: OK. I'm going to include the names. With respect to these three names -- the two for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 36 of 43 36 LalWmaxC defense and the one for the government -- where they have people not part of the defense team, if you prefer to have those included in the list of names that we'll deal with after voir dire instead of indicated as current members of the defense or prosecution teams, I'm fine with that. Ms. Sternheim, do you prefer that? MS. STERNHEIM: I think we would. THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: That's fine, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. We'll do that so there's clarity. What we're asking in the questionnaire are the current members of the prosecution and defense teams, and to the extent we have to draw a list, broadly anyway, of any names of people who may be mentioned at trial and to the extent there are former counsel who are not participating immediately in the case or who are participating but haven't filed a notice of appearance, it's appropriate to include their names in the list to be sure that no one has any personal knowledge. We will do that. Anything else? Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you. THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: No. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. I am going to make the changes that I SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007008 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 37 of 43 37 LalWmaxC suggested before docketing this. The only one left open was 24(b). Let me just take a quick look. I'm going to leave that as it is, because we'll do that as a follow-up in the voir dire. I should say all of this, a lot of work went into balancing the questions that are included in the questionnaire and the questions that are included in the voir dire because there are timing constraints on both, and so partly, I'm seeking to achieve a balance, and we need the questionnaire to be completable in time for the afternoon panel, as an example, and I think this is an appropriate question in any event for follow-up as I anticipate in the voir dire. That resolves the open questions. I'll make the changes. My draft will be docketed by the end of the week and the parties' joint proposed will be docketed by the end of the week as well in light of my prior ruling. Let me just get to one, I think, additional issue that I have. This is a logistical question that goes to my providing some oral preliminary instructions to the panel before they fill out the questionnaire. Typically, many judges would make, do make, a brief appearance in the jury assembly room where questionnaires are being filled out before the jurors fill out the questionnaire in order to emphasize the basic instructions and to see the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007009 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 38 of 43 38 1 judge there in person. I can do that, but there are space 2 limitations to get enough potential jurors in the room to take 3 these that we wouldn't be able to fit counsel table and the 4 parties in the room. I would also have to repeat it six times, 5 since we have two panels a day over three days. 6 Another option that occurs to me is to record a short 7 video, which the jury department would simply play in advance 8 of each panel filling out the questionnaire. Either way, I 9 would distribute the script of what I would say before I record 10 it to counsel so that you can weigh in or object or make any 11 changes. 12 Let me hear your views as to that question regarding 13 the logistics of some preliminary instructions from me. 14 Ms. Pomerantz. 15 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. 16 The government has no preference and defers to what 17 the Court prefers. 18 THE COURT: OK. 19 Ms. Sternheim. 20 MS. STERNHEIM: I think that's a fine idea, Judge, so 21 you don't have to repeat it six times. But I do have a 22 question, since you just mentioned counsel table. Is there an 23 expectation that counsel be present on the days that the 24 questionnaires are completed? 25 THE COURT: No. I think the only reason we would even SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007010 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 39 of 43 39 need to think about that is when judges do go give those preliminary instructions, as best I can tell, sometimes counsel are present, sometimes they're not. We wouldn't be able to accommodate in-person presence for that purpose. I don't think it would be necessary, so my suggestion is not to have the parties present for the filling out of the questionnaire. Do you disagree with that in any way, Ms. Sternheim? MS. STERNHEIM: No, Judge. I just wanted a clarification, because I have attended when judges have given those preliminary instructions. But we have no objection to the Court doing it in a recorded method. THE COURT: OK. Ms. Pomerantz, do you continue to be comfortable with that? MS. POMERANTZ: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I will docket an anticipated script soon to get your input in a letter with any requests for changes, and then I will get that recorded and work with the tech folks in the D.E.'S Office and the jury department to be able to have that played before the questionnaire is filled out. That's what I have, counsel. Are there other matters to raise related to jury selection or otherwise at this time? Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government. Thank you, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007011 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 40 of 43 40 LalWmaxC your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: Briefly, Judge. What courtroom will the jury be selected, and where will the trial be held? THE COURT: OK, Questionnaires will be filled out in the jury assembly room and in a ninth floor courtroom, as the district has been doing jury selection throughout Covid. So there would typically -- to the extent it happens in those rooms, typically there's a live feed between the jury assembly room and the ninth floor courtroom that will be able to hold, and I think we might even have an additional room to get up to the 100 people per panel. That's 500 Pearl, those spaces for the filling out of the questionnaire. I believe what we will do for the voir dire practice I described, it will take place on the fifth floor of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in courtroom -- My deputy asked me to pause and confirm. Ms. Maxwell, are you still on the line? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. Great. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, you're still on. MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, your Honor. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007012 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 41 of 43 LalWmaxC 1 THE COURT: OK. We have everyone we need. 2 The courtrooms on the fifth floor where jury selection 3 will take place are, and my clerk's just going to make sure I 4 get this right via text, 506 and 518, I believe. 5 I'm waiting for the text. 6 That's correct. 506 and 518. 7 We have walked through the logistics of that so that 8 we're able to walk the next juror -- No. 1, the jurors will be 9 able to report to those rooms using nonpublic elevators and 10 hallway, and the like, and we'll be able to move the juror from 11 one room to the next via nonpublic space, so that should aid 12 the process throughout. 13 Trial, we believe, will be in 318. And I'm going to 14 get confirmation of that. 15 318 in the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse. 16 Ms. Sternheim. 17 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you, Judge. 18 THE COURT: OK. And I will say we will, there will be 19 an opportunity through the D.E.'S Office, and my chambers will 20 reach out to counsel on both sides, an opportunity for 21 walk-throughs of the spaces in advance of trial. 22 And I think that's it. 23 Ms. Sternheim, any other questions? 24 MS. STERNHEIM: No, Judge, but I do recall, having 25 tried a case before your Honor in 318, that there are SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007013 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 42 of 43 42 LalWmaxC acoustical issues that I would hope might be addressed by the tech department. THE COURT: We've spent a fair amount of time talking about that, and the acoustics won't be as good as they would be in 500 Pearl, but there are other very good reasons to be where we'll be. I can assure you that the D.E.'S Office and my chambers will continue to work to make it as good as it can possibly be in an old courtroom. But I feel confident, based on what we've done so far and what I hope will continue to be the case, that it's going to work well. MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I wanted to just raise one issue, which is that the government is aware of certain courtroom sketches of Jeffrey Epstein at, I believe, 500 Pearl, and so just wanted to raise that for the Court and understanding that such sketches would be removed before the selection process. THE COURT: OK. I think that's a good suggestion, and I will talk to the D.E.'S Office. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you very much, your Honor. THE COURT: Anything else? Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Nothing further. Thank you. THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. MS. STERNHEIM: Nothing further. I do thank the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007014 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 43 of 43 43 LalWmaxC government for raising that. It was something we were going to raise. The pictures, at least the last time I saw, were in the corridor right by the elevator. THE COURT: Yes. We'll get that down for sure. Our next conference is November 1, and I think that's all I have for now. Thank you, everyone. We're adjourned. (Adjourned) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007015