Upload
mike-koehler
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
1/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1543
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs
vs. NO. CRIM. 14-263
JOSEPH SIGELMAN,
Defendant.
______________________________ UNITED STATES COURTHOUSEONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA4TH AND COOPER STREETSCAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08101JUNE 11, 2015
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A P P E A R A N C E S:
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICEBY: PATRICK STOKES, ESQUIREZACH INTRATER, ESQUIRETAREK HELOU, ESQUIRE
For the Government
FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLPBY: PATRICK J. EGAN, ESQUIRE
- And -QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
BY: WILLIAM BURCK, ESQUIREWILLIAM PRICE, ESQUIRE
JUAN MORILLO, ESQUIREBEN O'NEIL, ESQUIREVERONICA YEPEZ, ESQUIRE
Counsel for Defendant
Certified as true and correct as required byTitle 28, U.S.C., Section 753.
/S/ Karen Friedlander, CRR, RMR
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
2/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1544
W I T N E S S I N D E X
WITNESS PAGE
GREGORY S. WEISMAN
CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GREGORY S. WEISMAN BY
MR. PRICE:
1558
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
3/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1545
E X H I B I T I N D E X
EXHIBIT NUMBER PAGE
DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR
IDENTIFICATION
1567
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
4/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1546
(OPEN COURT, June 11, 2015, 8:08 a.m.)
THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
THE COURT: Good morning. Everybody, please be
seated. Well, we are continuing the battle of both sides.
Each one wants to put in the December 15th transcript parts
that they think favor one side. The other side wants to keep
them out and put in what they think favors them. If it hadn't
gotten so blatant that that's what you were both doing, one or
the other of you might have gotten away with it, but neither
of you are going to get away with it.
And, government, if you give me a transcript of the
things you want out, don't you think you could give me an
index and put some page and line and things, than make me go
through a hundred pages?
MR. INTRATER: I'm sorry, Judge, I thought -- I
apologize. I thought you had asked for the parts highlighted
that you wanted out.
THE COURT: I wanted highlight, but if you gave me
page or --
MR. INTRATER: Sorry, Judge.
THE COURT: Well, anyway, I'm going to make two
rulings about this transcript, maybe more than two. No. 1,
I'm going to take out Page 1, Line 1, through Page 5, Line 14,
because those are conversations in which Sigelman is not even
part of. This is a reception, coming up, you know, really,
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
5/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1547
but everything where the two of them are together. I'm
denying the motion as to all the rest of them.
How these two people interacted, the subtleties of body
language and everything, I think the jury is entitled to see,
and I'm going to let -- I'm going to let it in.
No. 2, Mr. Price, I'm not going to let you just play
the tape now on the guise that you are cross-examining
Weisman. That's not cross-examining. You're just playing the
evidence again. You can't do that. I'm not going to allow
it. You've had now two or two and-a-half days of
cross-examining Weisman, you've cross-examined him on all
kinds of things on the tape. I'm not going to let you just
play the tape. In effect, you've offered it in evidence, I'm
going to admit it in evidence, and if the jury wants to listen
to it and play the whole tape, we're going to make
arrangements so they can to do that. But I'm not going to sit
here, take a peek -- no more than I would take a document and
let you read the whole document.
This is cross-examination, and I'm not going to -- I'm
not going to just let you play a bit of evidence once again.
As I say, if there's particular sentences -- if there's
particular parts that you want to really cross-examine on,
that's different. But you've done that already, you've
actually crossed on many things. But if there are things you
haven't done yet, you can do it. But not just play the whole
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
6/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1548
tape. I'm not going to allow that. You got that?
MR. PRICE: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You don't agree, but you understand that?
MR. PRICE: I hear you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You got 60 seconds. What is it you want
to say?
MR. PRICE: It's this. It's impossible to
cross-examine him on his perception of Mr. Sigelman's
demeanor.
THE COURT: Oh, I'm --
MR. PRICE: And --
THE COURT: Why is that? People -- people give
testimony about somebody else's demeanor all the time.
MR. PRICE: Well, the way to impeach him is to say,
you say his demeanor was nervous and that he was tense and, et
cetera, the only way to impeach him on that --
THE COURT: Well, maybe he's telling the truth. You
know, every witness you're cross-examining can't necessarily
be impeached.
MR. PRICE: Well, he can be impeached, if the jury
sees the entire tape --
THE COURT: Oh, they will see the tape. If they want
to look at the tape, they can look at it. Sitting here just
in the middle -- now, if there's some particular segment you
want to a play and ask a question on, that's
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
7/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1549
cross-examination. Playing the whole thing is not
cross-examination. I've been very generous with you. I've
given you -- I mean, we've been two, three days just on cross.
As I say, if there's pieces of questions you want to ask, on a
particular segment of the tape, that's one thing. That's
cross-examination.
Just playing the whole tape for two and-a-half hours,
or however long it is, is just like -- it's like taking one of
these 10-, 20-page documents and reading it, you know. Even
though the document will go into evidence and the jury can see
it, if they want to -- and that's the way I feel about this.
This is -- I'm just not going to let you sit here and play it.
If you want to really cross-examine, and there's something
that you haven't yet cross-examined on, so be it, you can
cross on it.
MR. PRICE: For -- I'm sorry, I don't want to
interrupt. For completeness of what has been played, because
we did not -- we did not play excerpts for completeness during
the direct because we -- we knew we were going to get that
opportunity. For completeness, can we play the excerpts they
did not play?
THE COURT: No. This is cross-examination -- you
want to put Sigelman on the stand and then play the tape and
ask him a bunch of questions, or play the whole thing and ask
him questions, that's one thing. That's part of your direct
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
8/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1550
case. This is cross-examination, and I'm simply not going to
let you just play, for two and-a-half hours play the tape.
I'm just not going to allow it.
MR. PRICE: And I'm asking for something smaller than
that. For example, they stopped the tape to leave the
impression that Mr. Sigelman said, I'm going to go, and it
continues with their conversing after that.
THE COURT: Well, if you want to question him about
that, question him about it.
MR. PRICE: And then, I assume I'd be able to play
the tape --
THE COURT: You'll play eight lines of the tape or
whatever is needed for the question. Mr. Price, this is
cross-examination. This is not the chance to put your case
in. You'll get that chance, if you want to.
Well, that's my ruling on that.
My second -- oh, somebody brought me Starbucks. Good.
My second ruling is this, I got a motion this morning,
it's to strike certain testimony of Gregory Weisman, and it
really encompasses two kinds of things. Is one, when a
question was asked or many -- several times, you know, was JS,
was Joseph Sigelman telling the truth, and the witness would
say no, you know, that's one type of question.
The other type of question was what something meant,
you know, what do you think Sigelman was referring to when he
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
9/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1551
said such and such. Generally fall on those two categories.
I absolutely agree that a witness can't get on the
stand and say, in my opinion, he's telling the truth. That's
vouching. A lawyer can't do it, a witness can't do it. But
this is a little different. It's one thing for somebody --
for a witness to get on the stand and say, yeah, I think he
was telling the truth. But it's another thing when you ask
him whether you think he was truthful or not, it was really an
in-artful way of asking the question, but you're really asking
him about something he knows about, about an interaction, a
set of facts that he knows about, and that's different.
That's not basing, you know, whether you got a
reputation for truthfulness or not, or in your opinion he's an
honest guy. That's testimony, and you can read it in the
text, it's very clear, that when he says, he wasn't telling
the truth, in the instances where I let it in, he was really
asking him to give his version of an interaction they both
had, and so to the extent -- I'm denying that motion.
Now, I -- and I really have the same point as to the
other point, you know, when he said, what does this mean, what
does that mean. That's based on the fact that these two
interacted in the past, and I don't, you know -- I think
that's proper. I think when somebody -- that -- when you ask
one of the participants in the conversation, what do you think
he meant when he said, the meeting we had at Christmastime --
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
10/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1552
he says, oh, that was the meeting we had at such -- but that's
based on their -- his personal knowledge. It's not kind of
speculation as to what somebody made.
Now, sometimes that's a hard line to draw, when one is
speculation and both of those is. I tried my best. Take it
up to the Circuit. In 23 years, you may be the first to get
me reversed. What can I say? If anybody is qualified to get
me reversed, you two are, so --
MR. INTRATER: Judge, just the two of them?
THE COURT: What?
MR. INTRATER: What about the other seven?
THE COURT: Well, you know, it's what President
Kennedy said when he was addressing a group of Nobel laureates
who were having breakfast together. He was addressing them,
giving them a speech of some kind. He said, never has there
been such an agglomeration of talent in one room, except when
Thomas Jefferson had breakfast by himself.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: So, I look at them. This is like John
Adams and Thomas Jefferson having breakfast.
MR. INTRATER: Fair enough.
THE COURT: So, I am going to admit -- I mean, in a
sense, by asking me to play it, he's moving to have this tape
in. I'm going to admit it, the whole thing. I'm certainly
going to offer the jury a chance to listen to the whole thing.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
11/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1553
I'm going to provide whatever means of playback.
MR. INTRATER: Not -- I don't want to have to make
their point for them, but just subject to all of the -- your
other rulings with respect to everything regarding the Vesga
meeting. So we have to redact out all that Vesga stuff.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. INTRATER: Just so the record's clear, right?
THE COURT: If I -- if that's -- if it conforms with
the ruling I make.
MR. INTRATER: Yep.
THE COURT: I want somebody to prepare, as I said --
it has a number already, doesn't it?
MR. INTRATER: Well, Judge, it's -- for
identification, we marked it as 900 of the video and 901 as
the transcript, but we're working on it and --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. INTRATER: -- we will give you -- we'll give you
the proper thing.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to today admit the whole
-- subject to whatever, like, the redaction I made in the
first five pages.
MR. INTRATER: Right.
THE COURT: I'm going to admit the whole thing. And
again, I think that my -- that how they interact is very
important in the jury evaluating. You know, again, this is
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
12/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1554
not two strangers. This is not a guy who's walking in the
street, you know, and speaking to somebody he's never seen
before. These are two people who were, well, it was three
different companies, in effect. It was -- they had Office
Tiger association, they had a PetroTiger association and then
the follow-up guy.
MR. INTRATER: AGP.
THE COURT: AGP, or something like that.
MR. INTRATER: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PRICE: Your Honor, we have -- for what goes to
the jury, we don't have an objection to taking out that first
part.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. PRICE: Where -- because they're driving around
and things like that. I assume that if it's in evidence, we
get to -- we get to use it in closing.
THE COURT: Oh, absolutely. You can use it in
closing. I mean, it's just like one thing in the guise of
cross to take a document and read the whole document, even
though the witness has only been crossed on, you know, some
narrow point. But once it's in evidence, you can -- in
argument, not cross-examination, argument, you can use it any
way, any legal way you can. Absolutely.
As I say, I will make known to the jury that you will
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
13/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1555
provide them with the mechanical, whatever you want -- the
electronics necessary to hear it and see it. Even if I have
to bring them out here and let them see it on -- I mean, I
don't know what I can do, but -- because I don't know the
electronics at this point, but we'll solve that by the end of
this case, as to what we have to do.
I mean, I feel very, very strongly, subject to the
rulings I've made, that they should see as much of this
interaction as they can. Because I think there's subtleties.
I mean, I know I'm always amazed at what juries pick up that
even lawyers don't pick up or the judge doesn't pick up.
On the other hand, cross-examination is
cross-examination. It's not a time to, in effect, take some
evidence that you like and put it in so the jury can hear it
an extra time. As I say, no more than if you took a 20-page
document that you would cross-examine on four lines of and
then just read the whole thing to the jury, in the guise that
you're cross-examining. Can't do that.
On the other hand, closing argument, if it's in
evidence and you see something in there that you think is
dynamite, you know, to your case, or not even dynamite, you
just think is relevant to your case, you can use it. Do it
all the time.
So now I think that covers it. Do we have anything
outstanding other than that? -- oh, juror No. 1, remember,
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
14/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1556
she said her mother had gone to the hospital?
THE DEPUTY CLERK: I don't know if we shared that
part with him.
THE COURT: I know we had been told that her mother
died, just died, and --
THE DEPUTY CLERK: I don't think that's happened.
THE COURT: What?
THE DEPUTY CLERK: The message I got this morning is
that the mother is still in the hospital and still not doing
well but has -- the stress of dealing with that and, I guess,
coming here or not has made the juror herself sick and she
won't be able to make it today, and wasn't sure about in the
future.
THE COURT: I just think that's -- I just think
that's a lot of -- a lot of baggage for the juror. So I
propose to dismiss her -- she's not here, but, I mean, to
dismiss her and take the first of the four alternates, whoever
that is, and put them in seat No. 1.
MR. BURCK: No problem, Your Honor.
MR. STOKES: No objection.
THE COURT: Everything okay with that?
MR. INTRATER: Yes, Your Honor.
RESPONSE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So we will do that.
Now, actually, I take it back. Don't put her in seat
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
15/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1557
No. 1, put her in seat No. 12. In other words, move the other
ones up one.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay? No, there's a reason for that.
Over the years, I have done two different contrary things when
it comes to selecting a foreperson. In many cases, maybe the
majority of them, I just take juror No. 1. And in the other
case -- and I know the argument goes both ways, I just send
them into elect who they want, and I use both of those at
various times.
And I'm going to give you, both sides, a lot of input
on this issue and so -- and for some reason, you both agree to
do it, or I rule that juror No. 1 should be the foreman. It
shouldn't be the last alternate, it should be -- or the first
alternate, it should be -- juror No. 2 should become juror No.
1. So it's not the question of musical chairs, it's just a
question of the way I instruct them to pick a foreperson.
As I say, I've used both of them, and since I have
rarely, if ever, I can't even think of a case, had a hung
jury, both ways have worked. So, you know, that's that.
Okay. All right. We still have -- anything else?
MR. STOKES: Not from the government, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, all right. But please,
somewhere along the line, let's get this in evidence -- I
mean, it's in evidence, but subject to the redactions that --
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
16/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1558
MR. STOKES: We will have no problems taking care of
that with the defense. That won't be a problem, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll resume with Mr.
Weisman at the appointed hour.
(RECESS TAKEN; 8:25 a.m.)
THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
(JURY ENTERS; 8:37 a.m.)
(OPEN COURT; 8:39 a.m.)
THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. Please be
seated.
Ladies and gentlemen, before we start, I'm sure you
observed that juror No. 1 is not here. Has been replaced.
Her mother is grievously ill in the hospital, very, very ill,
and I know we all wish both her and her mother whatever good
can come out of this. We all wish them the best. But I
thought under the circumstances, that's why we have
alternates. It was only fair to let her be with her mother in
the hospital, so that explains why. I think you probably all
knew that already, but that explains why we impaneled, now,
one of the alternates.
Okay. Mr. Price.
MR. PRICE: Good morning, Mr. Weisman --
THE COURT: And Mr. Weisman, you're still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
(CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GREGORY S. WEISMAN BY MR.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
17/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1559
PRICE:)
Q. Good morning. Good morning, Your Honor, ladies and
gentlemen.
A. Good morning.
Q. Mr. Weisman, it is not true that anyone at the government
told you to continue working at AGP after you began
cooperating with the government, correct?
A. I believe for the initial period of time, I'm not certain
how long that was for.
THE COURT: Well, how long did you work for AG --
MR. PRICE: AGP.
THE COURT: After December 15th?
THE WITNESS: I believe it was until March or April.
THE COURT: So you worked with them for three months.
MR. PRICE: Over three months, three months.
THE COURT: Three months, you were functioning as
general counsel of a company that was controlled and dominated
by Joseph Sigelman.
THE WITNESS: And there were other shareholders. I
don't think he had majority of the company.
THE COURT: But he was -- he was the CEO, the driving
force behind that company.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't believe -- I don't know
whether he was -- had the title of CEO, but he was, yes, the
main -- he was -- yeah, the main person behind the company.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
18/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1560
BY MR. PRICE:
Q. Now, Mr. Weisman, a couple days ago you said that there
was a government official who told you to stay, continue
working at AGP. That is not true, is it?
A. I think I may have misspoken. I can't remember if it was
a short period of time they said I should remain there, or if
they left it up to me. I don't recall.
Q. No, I'm dividing it. First I'm going to talk about
whether you were instructed to stay there, at all, okay? You
said previously that the government official told you you
should continue working at AGP. That statement is not true,
is it?
A. I'm not sure. I don't recall.
Q. But that is, in fact, what you told the jury under oath
two days ago, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So what you said to the jury two days ago under oath was
false, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told the jury a couple days ago that there was a
government official who told you when you should leave. Do
you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that statement, that a government official told you
when you should leave, that statement that you made under oath
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
19/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1561
was false, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the real reason you stayed at AGP for those three
months, when you had this ethical conflict, was, you were
looking out for yourself and wanted to get money, right?
A. I don't recall.
THE COURT: You don't recall why you stayed?
THE WITNESS: I don't remember why I stayed on for
several months.
BY MR. PRICE:
Q. Mr. Weisman, you do understand that if you testified
under oath that you don't recall, when you, in fact, you do
recall, that that is a false statement under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. You do realize that that also is perjury, if you say you
don't recall when, in fact, you do recall, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And your statement under oath before this jury is that
you don't remember why you decided to stay as the chief
counsel of AGP, a company that was run by Mr. Sigelman, for
three months after you met with Mr. Sigelman on December 15th
and recorded your conversation. Your testimony is, you don't
remember why you stayed there that whole time?
A. I was continuing to work. It was my job. I don't recall
why I left when I did or why I stayed.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
20/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1562
Q. Now, is that testimony as accurate as the testimony you
gave us a couple days ago, that a government official had told
you to stay and then told you to leave?
A. I had misremembered a couple days ago.
THE COURT: Misremembered? Did you have a
hallucination?
THE WITNESS: No, I just...
BY MR. PRICE:
Q. You realize that a lot of your testimony is supported
solely by your word, right?
A. I think there's a lot of support that's been presented.
Q. But you know that a lot of your testimony, such as, Mr.
Sigelman told you to take the side letter out of the closing
binders, that a lot of that is supported solely by you saying
that's what happened, correct?
A. Again, I think there's a lot of evidence that's been
presented that supports it.
Q. Well, another example, you said that in a mediation with
-- with PetroTiger, that Mr. Sigelman said to you, alone in a
room, that no one else could hear, that he couldn't explain
the Hoff payments. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, that's another example of a statement that's
supported only by your word, correct?
A. Yes.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
21/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1563
Q. And you've told us that in this courtroom when you have
given your word under oath before this jury, you have given
false testimony, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. By the way, the mediation that you spoke about with
PetroTiger, PetroTiger wasn't even talking with you about
anything to do with payments from Dr. Hoff, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Let me start up, then, where we left off yesterday, and
we were talking about your statement to the jury under oath,
that in October of 2010, you were afraid that you would be
fired if you did not send the payment to Mr. Duran. Do you
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And incidentally, you testified about conversations in
October that were just between you and Mr. Sigelman, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's no e-mail or document which supports your
allegation concerning the substance of what happened in that
conversation, correct?
A. There's the follow-up e-mail that Mr. Sigelman had --
Mr. Hammarskjold sent to me.
Q. Well, there's an e-mail from Mr. Hammarskjold that Mr.
Sigelman -- is Mr. Sigelman on that?
A. No.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
22/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1564
Q. Okay. There's an e-mail from Mr. Hammarskjold directing
you to make where to make a payment, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But your testimony that Mr. Sigelman said the company is,
I think the way you put it, screwed, that the company is going
to go out of business if you don't send this wire. All we
have for that is your word, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So looking at that statement, your word, about what Mr.
Sigelman said and what you thought, we were talking about your
-- your belief, your terrified belief that you would be fired,
and we were looking at Exhibit 2264, and in particular, Page
25.
THE COURT: That's the shareholder agreement, right?
MR. PRICE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. What page? I'm sorry, what page?
MR. PRICE: It's page 25, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. PRICE:
Q. And we were looking at paragraph 5.6, and this is a
document that you helped draft and that you also signed on
behalf of PetroTiger in August of 2009, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That was a year before this conversation you say you had
with Mr. Sigelman in October of 2010, correct?
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
23/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1565
A. Yes, over a year before.
Q. And this document sets forth some of the limitations on
Mr. Sigelman's powers as the CEO, correct?
A. Yeah, in general, the company cannot hire or terminate an
executive officer unless it's approved by majority of the
board.
Q. And you were an executive officer, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so what this says is that for you, an executive
officer, to be terminated, to be fired, that would have to be
approved by at least the majority of the members of the board
of directors, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And executive officer included any executive officer of
the company that reported directly to either co-chief
executive officer of the company, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So that meant any executive officer that reported to Mr.
Sigelman could not be fired by Mr. Sigelman unless the board
of directors agreed, right?
A. Yes.
Q. On your direct examination, you spoke about tension
between members of the board of directors and Mr. Sigelman, at
this time, correct?
A. Yes.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
24/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1566
Q. And, in fact, Mr. Intrater showed you an e-mail -- after
showing you documents concerning you making wires to
Mr. Duran's account, he showed you an e-mail that had been
sent concerning members of the board coming in and talking to
employees of PetroTiger. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, around this time -- but you recall that the date of
that was -- was it October 12, 2010?
A. I'm not certain.
Q. Around this time, there were a lot of issues with the
board of directors, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, you and Mr. Sigelman co-authored a memo on
October 12th, 2010, kind of setting forth your views,
management's views, of the issues that were percolating with
the board of directors, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And if we could show -- I'll show you what we'll mark as
Exhibit 2541 for identification, Your Honor. That's 2541.
THE COURT: Is it D?
MR. PRICE: Yes, Your Honor, D.
THE COURT: 2541. This is a new exhibit.
MR. PRICE: It is.
THE COURT: Okay. What's the date of that memo
again? October.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
25/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1567
MR. PRICE: The date is October 11, 2010, for the
e-mail. It's on the face. The memo is October 12th, 2010,
but the date on the face of the document is October 11th.
THE COURT: Okay. That's marked for identification.
(DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. PRICE:
Q. The cover page, do you recognize as the communication
between -- from Mr. Sigelman, copying you, to Eric Levine?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Levine was an attorney, a civil attorney, that
represented you and Mr. Sigelman?
A. Yes.
Q. And attached, you see, is a -- looks like a memorandum
from you, Mr. Sigelman, Mr. Hammarskjold, to the Series A
members of the board of directors?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you help author this?
A. Yes.
MR. PRICE: Your Honor, I move Exhibit 2541 in
evidence.
MR. INTRATER: Your Honor, we would object. We would
just ask for a brief sidebar.
THE COURT: Okay. Go over to sidebar.
(SIDEBAR AS FOLLOWS:)
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
26/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1568
MR. STOKES: Your Honor, I can explain some of the
reasons why we object. First, Your Honor --
THE COURT: Can I ask you just a couple of questions?
Mr. Weisman and Mr. Sigelman were still employed by PetroTiger
when this was written.
MR. INTRATER: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. STOKES: Yes.
THE COURT: When this was written, although
apparently they had their lawyer, their civil lawyer was
already on board, even though they hadn't yet been fired.
MR. STOKES: That's right.
MR. PRICE: That's right.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. STOKES: What we believe this is, we don't
believe Mr. Weisman actually would know or remember whether
this was ever provided to the board or anybody in management
at the company. This is just an e-mail between Mr. Sigelman,
Mr. Weisman and their personal lawyer, Mr. --
THE COURT: Why does that make it not admissible,
though? Let's assume you are correct, let's assume you are
correct, that this reflects their joint thinking about
something. And let's assume for argument's sake, I don't know
yet, but that it was not provided to other board members or
other officers of the company. Let's assume that's correct.
MR. STOKES: Yes.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
27/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1569
THE COURT: Why does that, per se, make it
inadmissible?
MR. STOKES: Yes, Your Honor, we think it's
inadmissible for evidentiary 403 and the other is 8036. This
is not an appropriate business record. This is simply Mr.
Sigelman cooking up defenses for the future, self-serving
statements. It's pure hearsay by Mr. Sigelman in order to
identify and create his allegations as to why they are
performing well, why it is that they should not be fired, why
it is that their view of reality is their view. It's pure
self-serving hearsay. There's no evidence that it's a
reliable document. It doesn't come in under 8036.
It's also, Your Honor, defense's tee'd this up --
THE COURT: Say again, defense has -- tee'd --
MR. STOKES: Has tee'd this up in what is a
completely specious issue whether or not Mr. Weisman can be
fired by Mr. Sigelman. This is not --
THE COURT: Say that again.
MR. STOKES: This comes at the end of a line of
questioning as to whether Mr. Weisman thinks he can be fired
by Mr. Sigelman, and now we're entering into -- well, Mr.
Sigelman doesn't have any control over the board. Whether
that's true or not, the witness is now entering into
employment dispute issues.
THE COURT: I'm not -- he testified in the past -- I
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
28/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1570
mean, not in the past, two minutes ago, that he was -- he did
something because he was afraid he was going to be fired
and -- he's testified to that yesterday and that testimony has
been repeated.
MR. STOKES: Yes.
THE COURT: In one form or another, many times.
MR. STOKES: And so this document has nothing
additional to do with this issue, and the employment dispute
between Mr. Sigelman and the board of directors has nothing at
all to do with that issue. This is just injecting into the
trial a number of issues, performance and issues related to
Mr. Sigelman at the trial and his trumpeting what a great CEO
he is. It's coming in here is a Trojan horse, Your Honor, to
introduce issues in the case that are completely irrelevant to
the case and the charges.
MR. PRICE: The reason we have to do this is because
of what happened on direct. On direct examination after
Mr. Intrater questioned Mr. Weisman about the wire to
Mr. Duran in October.
THE COURT: The money wire.
MR. PRICE: The money wire. And the communications,
he then made a point, that on the very same day that happened,
put it in an e-mail, the very same day that happened, that Mr.
Sigelman complained to the Series A directors that they were
coming in and speaking with the people in finance and barred
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
29/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1571
them from doing so.
And the clear import of that is that Mr. Sigelman did
that because he didn't want what he was doing to be discovered
concerning Mr. Duran. If you look at the transcript, it's
clear as day that's what they're suggesting. I think we're
entitled to say, no, that was not the dispute. There was a
much bigger dispute with the Series A investors. It wasn't
that Mr. Sigelman was trying to prevent them from coming in to
look at financial records, and this document reflects what
management actually thought at the time.
If we can't do this, then the jury is going to be left
with the misimpression that the dispute was all about trying
to keep things from the Series A directors concerning payments
to Mr. Duran.
MR. STOKES: Your Honor, again, I don't believe the
defense can show this document ever went to management. This
is simply Mr. Sigelman's musings that relate to his conspiracy
theories about how the world is out to get him. There are
dozens of documents of this nature, and the defense has been
repeatedly trying to inject this into the trial. This is just
another example of that. It has nothing to do with the issues
at hand. It's allowing Mr. Sigelman to speak in the trial,
frankly, falsely, without actually testifying. This is --
these are issues that have nothing to do with our charges in
our case.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
30/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1572
MR. PRICE: Well, then I ask, Your Honor, why did
Mr. Intrater put in that e-mail, the date was October 12th, I
believe, saying that Mr. Sigelman was upset that members of
the board of directors had come and asked questions of the
finance department? We did not put this issue into the
record, and that's the only reason I'm putting this in, so we
can show this gentleman's thoughts. I'm not going to go
through this page by page.
THE COURT: "His" meaning?
MR. PRICE: Mr. Weisman's. He said he co-authored
this.
MR. STOKES: Your Honor, there are many documents
directly to the point, direct communications with the board
about the very issues Mr. Price just identified. If he wants
to use those for their communications with the board about the
October 12th issue, he certainly is -- there are many
documents he can point to. This document does not relate to
this issue. This is simply injecting Mr. Sigelman's views of
his exemplary leadership of the company into the case. The
document was never forwarded to the board.
There are documents he can put in, in which the board
and Mr. Sigelman, around this time, are talking about these
very issues in September, in October, on performance and
dispute between management and Mr. Sigelman.
We've also argued that this whole entire area should be
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
31/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1573
-- should be excluded because it's just an employment dispute
issue. It has nothing to do with -- with the bribing. But
this document is in anticipation of litigation. They're
preparing it for their lawyer and there's no evidence of this
ever being delivered to management. Mr. Weisman, who is
easily led around on cross, and has now been led to state that
he's made false testimony, when, in fact, what he really said
is, he made a mistake, is now being questioned --
THE COURT: He made a mistake, gives false testimony,
all right.
MR. STOKES: Well, Your Honor, we -- on that front,
we would ask that the witness --
THE COURT: That's like when I was very heavy, I used
to tell my wife, I didn't go to Dairy Queen on the way home
from work every day.
MR. STOKES: And, Your Honor, we would also ask for
the --
THE COURT: Just a mistake.
MR. STOKES: That's right. And we would ask that the
jury be able to develop -- we be able to develop this evidence
with the defense, so that the jury can properly understand
that. Because we think that both this and his prior testimony
are all areas that are fair for the jury, but -- but,
injecting inadmissible hearsay into the trial related to an
employment dispute through the back door of, this is related
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
32/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1574
to a bribe payment, when it doesn't address the bribe payment
in any way, shape or form, is opening this case to a series of
issues that are utterly irrelevant.
THE COURT: I mean, what's -- clearly, all the other
problems with the company are not particularly relevant to
what's going on here.
MR. PRICE: They're only relevant because the
prosecution has suggested that the problem was that Mr.
Sigelman was directing board members not to go and talk to
finance because he was trying to hide something, and this
gentleman knows that that was not the problem. And these are
his thoughts.
Now, I'm not going to go into this in detail. I'm not
going to --
THE COURT: How do you deal with that argument,
though? You chose to make a very minor point. I mean, that
the reason he was angry, although I know as a practical
matter, management hates it when directors go down to
employees and -- I've been in personal situations where that
happens, but -- I mean, when I was practicing law, and -- but
what's -- you brought that up.
MR. STOKES: Your Honor, what we brought up was an
e-mail, and Mr. Weisman explained an e-mail in which there was
a dispute, in which Mr. Sigelman directed the board members
not to talk to management, and Mr. Weisman explained --
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
33/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1575
THE COURT: But you elicited that, and you brought
that out, as clearly you're going to argue that that's the
reason that he didn't like that, he was afraid they would find
out, the directors would find out about his alleged --
MR. STOKES: That's --
THE COURT: Then why did you elicit it?
MR. STOKES: Because at that time, Mr. Sigelman and
the board are -- the very day that Mr. Weisman and Mr.
Sigelman are paying the bribe, around the time of the paying
of bribes, Mr. Sigelman is directing the board to stay away
from the company. So we absolutely brought that up in that
context. Mr. Price can --
THE COURT: You're going to make an argument --
you're going to argue that's proof, in fact, that he made a
bribe.
MR. STOKES: And Mr. Price --
THE COURT: It's bootstrapping in a way, but that's
the argument you're going to make.
MR. STOKES: No, no, we're not arguing that because
of that, he made a bribe. We're arguing --
THE COURT: No, no, but the fact that your position
is, he wouldn't have had any problem with the board if he
hadn't been paying a bribe, but because he had paid a bribe,
he didn't want the board to be, in effect, investigating it.
You brought that up.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
34/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1576
MR. STOKES: Your Honor, Mr. Price can certainly
question Mr. Weisman about the e-mail. These issues are not
pertinent. The fact that a memo is drafted by management that
is not given to the board on that same day --
THE COURT: What is giving to the board have to do
with it? I'm trying to --
MR. STOKES: Our argument is that this is not a
business record, this is purely --
THE COURT: Oh, no, it's not, I agree with that.
They haven't argued it's a business record.
MR. STOKES: And so it's an unreliable statement of
Mr. Sigelman simply arguing issues that are not pertinent to
the dispute at issue on October 12, where Mr. Sigelman tells
the board to stop interfering and questioning witnesses. If
Mr. Price wants to ask about that, he can certainly do that.
This memo does not address those issues.
This memo simply imports months and months of dispute
about economic and performance issues that have nothing to do
with any of these issues. And it's just going to confuse the
jury. It's just going to be used to turn this trial into an
employment dispute and suggest to the jury that something's
going on here that's not. This is -- if you --
THE COURT: Go ahead, go ahead. You finished?
MR. STOKES: Yes.
MR. PRICE: I have a suggested solution. I mean, we
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
35/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1577
all know that that e-mail that he put in was sort of a cheap
shot. Management does not like --
THE COURT: Wait.
MR. STOKES: No, I disagree that we agree that that's
a cheap shot.
THE COURT: Wait, I don't, and I'm -- don't take my
silence as agreeing with that.
MR. PRICE: Okay. But --
MR. STOKES: I'm just taking his word to saying we
don't agree.
MR. PRICE: Let's say it's a leap, a leap, to infer
from that, that was to hide bribe payments. And my solution
is, I don't have to get into this. These are Mr. Weisman's
thoughts, by the way, not Mr. Sigelman's.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PRICE: Mr. Sigelman's as well, but Mr. Weisman.
We keep hearing Mr. Sigelman. I don't need to get into this
if we strike that testimony.
THE COURT: What, tell me --
MR. PRICE: The testimony concerning the e-mail about
telling the board not to start -- not to be talking to their
employees. Identify the number of the e-mail, it is a small
point.
THE COURT: Go back. Why is that probative of your
case?
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
36/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1578
MR. STOKES: Your Honor, first --
THE COURT: What fact in dispute is going to be
proved by that e-mail?
MR. STOKES: That e-mail is going to establish two
things. One, in opening, the defense has opened on an
employment dispute and issues related with antagonism between
the board and Mr. Sigelman, and so we introduced that e-mail
in part for that purpose.
But also in part to show that at the very time they're
paying bribes, Mr. Sigelman, Mr. Weisman, Mr. Hammarskjold,
that they are in a dispute with the board and trying to keep
the board from interfering with the company. Not only for
performance reasons, but because they want the board out of
their business so that they can go on and do their business,
which includes, among many things --
THE COURT: That's a very powerful inference, though.
MR. STOKES: Actually -- and Mr. Price can ask about
that directly. And Mr. Price -- we're not, we're not going
to --
THE COURT: No, no, no. But one of his points is --
just a minute. There were lots of reasons they didn't want
the board meddling in their affairs. It had to do with the
way the company was being operated, I'll call them operational
factors of the company. I mean, that's -- well, all right.
MR. STOKES: And we think that point can adequately
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
37/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1579
be established through cross-examination. Very simply, this
document itself is --
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to -- I'm not going to
let the document in, but I'm going to allow him to
cross-examine as to what was going on at the company. And
this is a source of information, at the very least. I mean,
again if on cross-examination you would have a rational basis,
but that's not a requirement, again you can't ask a question
out of the clear blue sky, but this is a basis for pointing
out that there may be 20 other issues that would have
justified -- I'm a little afraid of this because they have
this thing, we don't know, he can't remember how much he
prepared, how much Sigelman prepared, how much --
Hammarskjold's on this, how much Hammarskjold prepared. It's
just typical vague testimony.
He knows, you know, he knows enough just to be
dangerous and -- but not more than that. But I'm going to let
him, without reference to this document, although he can get
information from it, but I'm going to let him cross-examine on
what other issues there were that might --
MR. STOKES: Sure, understood. And the government
doesn't object. We just ask that it be tied to October 12th
and the issue of keeping Mr. Sigelman, keeping the board --
THE COURT: Well, you've -- look, we know --
apparently it's not even disputed, in a way, that the board
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
38/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1580
was, and I hate to use the word interfering, the board was, in
effect, going behind the executive management to get
information from other employees, okay? Both sides agree that
that happened. I mean, nobody denies that, and you've tried
to draw the inference that the reason they didn't want, you
know, they wanted them to keep their noses out of their
affairs is that they didn't want them to know that there was
bribery going on. That is a big-time powerful inference, it
really is, for something as slender, factually, as that.
And I think he's entitled to show that there are lots
of issues going on, where there was the meddling by the board
with the employees, they would have a reason for not wanting
that. And I'm going to let him do that.
What I'm not going to let him do is put this in because
I don't even have clear testimony of who authored this thing.
I don't know who it was delivered to. I mean, you know,
again --
MR. STOKES: Thank you.
THE COURT: It's -- I mean, to me, it's troubling. I
mean, Weisman can remember details of a particular word that
somebody used in a particular conversation five years ago, but
some bigger picture thing, he suddenly doesn't remember and --
I really haven't gotten clear testimony what role he played in
this. Just saying, I had input, doesn't tell me anything.
MR. PRICE: I can ask him more questions about that.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
39/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1581
I certainly would like to impeach him with this, if he says
this wasn't -- something wasn't an issue, since his name was
on this, he was copied on this.
And with respect to whether or not the document itself
should come in, I think it should come in for his state of
mind, because that's what we're talking about, is what they
were thinking, and if Mr. Stokes thinks --
THE COURT: Well, if you want to use it to impeach,
I'm going to deal with that if it comes up. I think you can
impeach in a way --
MR. PRICE: So, one thing I was going to suggest --
it seems that one of the things Mr. Stokes is worried about is
sort of the bragging as to how Mr. Sigelman did as a manager.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. PRICE: He mentioned that this is Mr. Sigelman's
self-serving statements as to how well management did. That
goes through Page 6 of -- the middle of Page 6.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. PRICE: And that's not at all what I'm trying to
accomplish here. And I have no objection to that being
redacted. All I want to focus on is the tensions between the
board and Mr. Sigelman, and I'd like to do it --
THE COURT: Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but Mr.
Stokes, look, when you drew the inference, you know, and very
expressly put it in that you wanted them to tie his anger at
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
40/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1582
the board or his upsetedness with the board in dealing
directly with people below the executive management, the
inference you want them to draw is that he didn't want them to
uncover skulduggery -- the bribes, or the alleged bribes. And
as I said, that's a very powerful inference, and I think he's
entitled to say, hey, no, there's just a million -- there's a
million other things.
MR. STOKES: Judge, I frankly don't remember the
witness's exact words on that testimony. I think the point
we've really established in the statement they're paying
bribes, that management is -- that the relationship with the
board has soured, and certainly, that is -- and Mr. Sigelman
and the board are fighting over whether the board should have
access to employees, not that they're -- I don't believe we
ever say --
THE COURT: If he's not allowed to bring out through
Weisman what other things they were arguing over, what other
issues there were for them --
MR. STOKES: We're not objecting to that in a limited
way. What we're saying is, this document, we don't think,
should be admissible.
THE COURT: I've already ruled. I'm not going to
admit the document, it's marked for identification.
MR. STOKES: Understood.
MR. PRICE: Your Honor, I think the same day, it's
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
41/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1583
October 12th, you know, they're making a time issue, so I
think I should --
THE COURT: Well, you --
MR. STOKES: Versions of this document are produced
up through 2012.
MR. PRICE: Sure.
MR. STOKES: So this document was not delivered to
anybody on October 12.
THE COURT: You make the point I delivered -- the
issue is not so much delivery to the board. It's the question
of what his mindset was. I mean, to the extent that his
testimony up to now is used as a basis for arguing that they
were -- that Sigelman was upset with this behind back door,
because he wanted to hide illegal activity. That's a very
powerful inference, and I think he's entitled to show although
there's all kinds of other reasons that -- if he denies, it
isn't true that you were having trouble, you know, paying
expense -- whatever it is, something unrelated to that, and he
says, no, that's not an issue, and yet this thing says -- I
think he's entitled to show that it says that.
MR. STOKES: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Not to get the thing in evidence, but
say, wasn't it -- memo, we've already identified it. Didn't
you sign onto that memo? Didn't your signing on show that you
agreed with the contents of the memo? I mean, that's a
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
42/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1584
legitimate question, and didn't you say in this memo, yeah,
what other problems we were having, we weren't paying our
bills on time or whatever it is.
MR. STOKES: Absolutely. And, Your Honor, our
request is twofold. One is, and the Court has already ruled
on one of them, the first issue, as the Court ruled, this
document is not coming into evidence.
The second is, we're alerting the Court that we believe
that this is a way of opening this case to a gigantic
employment dispute, and we're simply saying that we think for
403 reasons -- and that would come up as questions are asked.
THE COURT: I'm going to try to control that.
MR. STOKES: Yes.
THE COURT: I'll try to do the best I can. You know,
the sign in the old western bar, don't shoot the piano player.
MR. STOKES: We're not shooting.
THE COURT: He's doing the best he can.
But I think you're underestimating how powerful the
inference. You're allowed to put in evidence that the reason
Sigelman was angry or upset, or whatever right words you want
to use, were that board members were going behind the
executive management to gather information from employees, was
because he didn't want them to uncover he was doing anything
as, you know, bribing people, whatever. That's a powerful,
powerful inference, and I think he's entitled to --
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
43/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1585
MR. STOKES: I'm not sure that's the inference we
were actually planning to draw from that, but --
THE COURT: I know, but he's -- of course, it is.
There's no secret to that point, but he's entitled to show --
no, just a minute. There's a lot of other reasons things that
were going on that may have upset. Even if it relates to an
employment dispute.
MR. PRICE: If I could suggest, because this will
save hours, hours of time, if I have to go through all this
and do what Mr. Stokes suggested, I think he's just said he
doesn't think that that was the reason they put the document
in.
THE COURT: Oh, no, he said it was the reason.
MR. STOKES: Why don't we talk, if we can spend five
minutes looking at the transcript, what I think that your
suggestion is, could we strike the testimony.
MR. PRICE: Let's strike the testimony.
THE COURT: Do you want me to just send the jury out
and give you time?
MR. PRICE: Let's do that. Because I think striking
it --
MR. STOKES: We will take a look at it.
MR. PRICE: It will save us a couple hours.
THE COURT: I will send the jury out for 15 minutes
and then you can. But, right now, at least at this moment, my
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
44/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1586
ruling is, this is not admitted into evidence, but the -- to
the extent that he can establish, which I think he can, that
this reflects the views of Gregory Weisman. If Gregory
Weisman contradicts, like, there's a paragraph, you know, the
impression is, oh, no, I don't agree with that, I think he can
impeach him, and say, didn't you participate in this. Didn't
you agree that this was an accurate statement, and to impeach
him in that -- that's my ruling up to this point. If you can
agree on what to strike, maybe that would save more time.
MR. STOKES: Sure.
THE COURT: But up to this point, that's my ruling.
MR. PRICE: Okay.
THE COURT: I'll to send the jury out.
(END OF SIDEBAR.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we still have a
legal issue we have to resolve over the next few minutes. So
rather than have you just sit here and cool your heels, we're
going to send you out for 15 minutes to relax while they --
while we all try to resolve that issue.
So I would appreciate it if you bear with me. I think
we may save lots and lots of time if we get this thing
resolved.
So with that, I'm excusing you for 15 minutes.
Please, again, do not -- A, don't speculate on what
we're discussing, and don't discuss the case among yourselves.
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
45/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
United States District Court
Camden, New Jersey
1587
Keep an open mind until you've heard all the evidence.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
(JURY EXITS; 9:19 a.m.)
THE COURT: Okay. Folks. If you need me, I'm -- I'm
inside.
MR. PRICE: Thank you, Judge.
MR. STOKES: Thank you, Judge.
(RECESS TAKEN; 9:20 a.m.)
THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
(JURY ENTERS 10:51 a.m.)
(OPEN COURT; 10:52 a.m.)
THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. Please be
seated.
I have news. I have news. And the news is this: The
legal matters that the parties have been working on are still
not resolved and I can't predict in my meaningful way whether
it's going to take a half hour, an hour, two hours and I don't
want you at the end of the week sitting in that room. That's
a lovely room, I know that, but sitting in that room, you
know, with little to do. So what I'm going to do is I'm going
to send you home for the weekend and we will resume Monday
morning at 8:30, regular time. And again, my thanks, and I'm
sure the thanks of all counsel, as well, for your
participation, your diligence.
Please, don't discuss the case among yourselves. Keep
8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript
46/46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1588
an open mind until you've heard all the evidence. Don't
discuss the case with your family, friends or loved ones, no
research on the case. You'll get your -- you'll learn
everything you need to learn here in the court. And with my
extraordinary profound thanks, have a safe trip home, have a
great weekend and I'll see you Monday.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
(JURY EXITS; 10:53 a.m.)
THE COURT: Can I see counsel.
(10:54 a.m.)