8:15-CR-0060-DOC - 6/13/2016 - Day 5, Volume I 1 UNITED ......1 debbie gale, u.s. court reporter...

1

DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER

8:15-CR-0060-DOC - 6/13/2016 - Day 5, Volume I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

- - - - - - -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) CERTIFIED

Plaintiff, ) )

vs. ) No. 8:15-CR-0060-DOC ) Day 5, Volume I

1) NADER SALEM ELHUZAYEL; )2) MUHANAD ELFATIH M.A. BADAWI, ) ) Defendants. )___________________________________)

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Jury Trial

Santa Ana, California

Monday, June 13, 2016

Debbie Gale, CSR 9472, RPR, CCRR Federal Official Court Reporter United States District Court 411 West 4th Street, Room 1-053 Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 558-8141

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

Case 8:15-cr-00060-DOC Document 294 Filed 03/31/17 of 158 Page ID #:4621

2



APPEARANCES:

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Criminal Division BY: Judith A. Heinz

Assistant United States Attorney 312 North Spring Street 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90012 213-894-7280 [email protected]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Criminal Division BY: Deirdre Z. Eliot

Assistant United States Attorney 411 West 4th Street Suite 8000 Santa Ana, California 92701 714-338-3500 [email protected]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY General Crimes Section BY: Julius J. Nam

Assistant United States Attorney 312 North Spring Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90012 213-894-4491 [email protected]

FOR DEFENDANT NADER SALEM ELHUZAYEL:

Pal A. Lengyel-Leahu (retained) LAW OFFICES OF PAL A. LENGYEL-LEAHU 360 East First Street Suite 609 Tustin, California 92780 714-497-6813 [email protected]

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


3



APPEARANCES (Continued): FOR DEFENDANT MUHANAD ELFATIH M.A. BADAWI:

Katherine T. Corrigan (CJA appointment) CORRIGAN WELBOURN AND STOKKE APLC 4100 Newport Place Suite 550 Newport Beach, California 92660 949-251-0330 [email protected]

ALSO PRESENT:

Cambria Lisonbee (assisting Ms. Corrigan) Joshua Hopps (assisting Mr. Lengyel-Leahu)

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


4



I N D E X

Jury Trial - Day 5, Volume I

PROCEEDINGS PAGE

7Discussion re Orlando shooting (outside presence of jury)

14Individual voir dire of jurors and alternates by the Court

50Juror No. 12 excused

68Witness Vicencia resumes the stand

69Selection of alternate to become Juror No. 12

70Witness testimony resumed

80Voir Dire By Mr. Lengyel-Leahu

152Discussion re Jury Instructions

WITNESSES

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

VICENCIA, Nicholas

By Mr. Nam (resumed) 70

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT NO./DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION IN EVIDENCE

707 134Audio recording of call to Chase Bank on 4/30/2015

710 138Audio recording of call

to Chase Bank on 5/2/2015

718 140Audio recording of call

on 4/29/2015

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


5



EXHIBITS


723 142Audio of call to Wells

Fargo Bank on 5/6/2015 729 146Audio of call to Wells

Fargo Bank on 5/6/2015 731 146Audio of call to

"checklookup" on 5/5/2015

739 149Audio of voicemail from

Chase debit card fraud department - 5/9/2015

740 149Audio of call to Chase

Bank from Elhuzayel - 5/9/2015

827 145Audio recording

928 103Chase Bank ATM

Photograph 1 - 5/1/2015 930 109Wells Fargo Bank ATM

photographs - 5/1/2015 931 109Wells Fargo Bank ATM

withdrawal webpage dialog 5/4/2015

932 113Wells Fargo Bank ATM

photographs - 5/5/2015 934 113Wells Fargo website

screen shot - 5/5/2015 936 118Wells Fargo Bank ATM

photographs - 5/6/2015 AM


withdrawal record printout - 5/6/2015

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


6



EXHIBITS


938 121Wells Fargo Bank

withdrawal printout - 5/6/2015

939 125Wells Fargo Bank

interior photographs - 5/6/2015


withdrawal record printout - 5/6/2015

941 129Chase Bank ATM

photograph - 5/6/2015

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


7



SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016

Day 5, Volume I

(8:12 a.m.)

THE COURT: All right. We're on the record in the

matter of Mr. Badawi. Mr. Badawi and counsel are present,

and Mr. Elhuzayel and counsel are present, and the

government's present.

So all parties are present and on the record. The

jury is not present.

(Outside the presence of the jury.)

DISCUSSION RE ORLANDO SHOOTING

THE COURT: Counsel, over the weekend, obviously,

there was an attack down in Orlando, Florida.

Before I bring the jury in and put you in the

position of making a record or making a statement and then

sending them out, I thought I would directly raise that with

you because it's on the front page, of course, of every

newspaper in the country and on CNN.

Is there any request or thought that you're going

to make? And I'd like to hear that now before the jury

comes in. You have to make that in the presence of the

jury. (Verbatim.)

So, Ms. Corrigan.

MS. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Yesterday I

spoke with Mr. Heinz, and at least my request, and I believe

1

2

3

408:12

5

6

7

808:12

9

1008:12

1108:12

1208:12

13

1408:13

15

16

17

18

1908:13

20

21

22

2308:13

2408:13

25


8



it's the government's request also, that each of the jurors

be individually spoken with by the Court to determine,

number one, if they have any connection or link to any of

the victims or anyone in Orlando; number two, if they are

aware of the news, which I can't believe they wouldn't be.

The flags are at half-staff out front and across the nation.

Even at the Stanley Cup finals last night, obviously, this

was mentioned. So I don't think anybody could get away from

it.

THE COURT: You watched the Stanley Cup?

MS. CORRIGAN: I did, while I was reading

discovery. Kind of watched it. I'm actually not sure who

won. But anyway -- so, the -- but I would like to determine

whether their fairness as jurors have been affected

negatively, which I would imagine these folks might have

changed their views of this case over the weekend and their

ability to sit as fair jurors. Obviously, if we end up in a

situation, there may be a mistrial.

So that's where we are.

THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Thank you, Your Honor. I

agree that they should be individually spoken with and

perhaps remind them of their oath that they would not allow

any event outside this courtroom to have an impact on the

decision that they make regarding the evidence in this case.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1008:14

1108:14

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1908:14

2008:14

2108:14

22

23

24

25


9



But determining whether or not these events would cause them

to change their previous answers, cause them to, as they

further reflect, they could no longer be fair in a case such

as this, where the specific organization that the government

is alleging is involved in our client's behavior has

taken -- they call it credit; I call it blame for what

occurred. I think that would be appropriate.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: And give them the opportunity

to opt out if they no longer feel they could be fair.

THE COURT: Government.

MS. HEINZ: Your Honor, the government agrees that

it would be wise to individually voir dire each juror to

find out if they can still be fair in this case.

Of course, the charges in this case are not

connected at all with Orlando, and that is a totally

separate incident, but, um -- and perhaps that also could be

discussed with each individual juror.

But I do think it would be wise to voir dire each

one individually.

THE COURT: I'm going to summarize what I'm

hearing, and let's have a discussion and not a preprepared

script with each juror. First, there's a request to ask if

they have any links, any loved ones or persons that they

know in Orlando who might've been victims of the shootings

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

808:15

908:15

10

1108:15

1208:15

13

14

1508:15

16

17

18

1908:16

20

2108:16

22

23

24

25


10



that occurred.

Second, I think we can assume that the jury has

already heard of the Orlando shooting, so instead of asking

that naive question, "Have you heard of the Orlando

shootings?" I think we should simply say there have been

shootings in Orlando over the weekend and just presume that

they know that. Unless you want me to ask if they've heard,

and if you do, I will.

But the third area is what you've driven at from

the defense perspective. Both counsel are really,

obviously, concerned. The Court and the government is also

about their continued willingness to be fair.

But before that question is asked, remember,

they've already heard a substantial amount of evidence. So

I'm a little concerned that they would take that as, "Well,

if we take the evidence into account that we've heard thus

far, now could we be fair." Well, they need to be reminded

that this case puts them in the position of being a judge.

They need to be reminded, as you said, Ms. Heinz, and simply

told that these events in Orlando has nothing to do with the

two young men on trial here.

And then I think they should be asked if they can

continue to be fair and reminded of their oath. So that's

the order that I propose.

Now, I'll reach out to each one of you for any08:17

1

208:16

3

4

5

6

7

8

908:16

10

11

12

1308:17

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2208:17

23

24

25


11



additional suggestions.

Government?

MS. HEINZ: The government has no additional

suggestions, Your Honor, and the government agrees with sort

of the order that you've outlined.

THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan?

MS. CORRIGAN: I agree with it.

THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I didn't spend a lotta time

watching TV yesterday, but I did see something about there's

an additional arrest that took place in L.A.

THE COURT: That was in Los Angeles, and it was

allegedly involving the gay rights parade that was occurring

in the West Hollywood area. There's no known linkage that

I'm picking up from any of the press to the Orlando

shootings. There hasn't been much notoriety about that.

But there may be local coverage that I missed. I tried to

get back to every television station to see what was

being -- if you want me to raise that also, I'm happy to.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Well, I made the connection

just from a couple'a things that flashed across my --

THE COURT: Just a minute.

(To law clerks:) Neel and Ariel, this is

Mr. Staples.

(To AUSA:) And, Greg, this is Neel and Ariel. If08:19

1

208:17

308:17

4

5

608:18

708:18

808:18

908:18

10

11

1208:18

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2008:18

21

2208:19

2308:19

24

25


12



you'd -- thank you very much --

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: It may be --

THE COURT: -- if you would take our group,

please. Thank you.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: It may be just a reminder.

THE COURT: Well, you know, if they want to remain

for a few more moments to see the way this is sorted out,

we'll go right next door.

MR. STAPLES: We actually have to -- we need an IT

person nextdoor.

THE COURT: We'll get one. Neel and Ariel are in

charge of that; they'll take care of it. Thanks, Greg.

I'm sorry. Counsel.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Maybe just a reminder to the

jury that news reports are not evidence, and the notion of

whatever they're hearing is clearly not relevant for a juror

to deliberate on or to consider when making a decision in a

criminal case. Something along those lines might help.

THE COURT: And two things I'll share with you.

These are naive thoughts on my part, but they are thoughts.

First of all, I don't think that we could predict

when an attack would take place. I don't think this,

unfortunately, will be the last attack that occurs.

Number two, the jury probably hasn't been watching

as much television as all of us have tried to, to see what's

1

208:19

308:19

4

508:19

608:19

7

8

908:19

10

1108:19

12

1308:19

1408:19

15

16

17

18

1908:19

20

2108:20

22

23

2408:20

25


13



going on; but it's apparent that whatever the statement was

and linkage to ISIL came a short time into the attack.

It appears to be a lone wolf attack, in a sense.

And then a claim by this individual to have linkage to ISIL.

Third, of all the times that I was least worried,

and unfortunately it turned out to be wrong, it was Ramadan.

Of all the times, I wouldn't have expected an attack in this

period of time. And my greatest concern has always been the

convention, what was going to be said in this period of

time, even not knowing who the nominees were.

Unfortunately, this is going to heat up. If, in

fact, we can't get a fair jury, I'm going to suggest to both

of you that this case can't be tried until after the

election. Because this is going to continue to heat up

along the way with more and more rhetoric. The presumptive

nominees now -- Hillary Clinton is the presumptive

nominee -- is saying she'll use the word "radical Muslim"

now for the first time. Donald Trump, the presumptive

nominee, is taking the same position he's taken

historically. This is only going to get more exacerbated in

the press and more debated.

Let's see if we can continue. If we can't, I'm

going to discuss this matter with you in terms of timing.

I'm a little concerned that if we start in September or

October, we're right in the election.

1

2

308:20

4

508:20

6

7

8

9

10

1108:21

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2208:21

23

24

25


14



So hopefully, we don't get to that point because I

don't think it's predictable in the future. And I think

starting over again places you in the same position of what

next. I don't think you can pick and choose the time.

INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE OF JURORS AND ALTERNATES

THE COURT: (To the clerk:) So if you'd ask Juror

No. 1, Deb. I'm going to need to talk to Juror No. 1 first.

That's going to be Nicholas Buttum (sic), B-U-T-T-U-M

(verbatim).

THE CLERK: Right.

THE COURT: I want him singled out and brought in.

Have him seated in Seat No. 12, although he's Juror No. 1.

(Juror No. 1 called in and seated.)

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Buttum, if you'd come

in, please. If you would have a seat.

Let me start by saying that there was a shooting

in Orlando, Florida, over the weekend. Are you aware of

that from some news coverage?

JUROR NO. 1: Yes.

THE COURT: I think most of the country is. We

expected that. Do you have any links to any persons,

friends, loved ones that might be victims of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 1: No.

THE COURT: Let me remind you that that shooting

has nothing to do with the two young men on trial, but we're

108:21

2

3

4

508:22

608:22

7

8

9

1008:22

1108:22

12

1308:23

1408:23

15

1608:23

17

18

1908:23

2008:23

21

22

2308:23

2408:23

25


15



a little concerned about the inflammatory nature that could

have any potential carryover to this trial, so we're talking

to each of you individually for a moment.

Do you understand that these two young men have

nothing to do with that incident in Florida?

JUROR NO. 1: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. I think the most important

question we have, then, is, remember that you're judges;

you're neutral; you're hearing the government case; you

haven't heard from the defense. You're a judge.

But would you -- can you continue to be fair in

light of the activity down in Orlando, with no carryover

from that activity to this case?

JUROR NO. 1: Yes.

THE COURT: I'm gonna ask you that one more time.

Are you absolutely certain?

JUROR NO. 1: I am.

THE COURT: Okay. There's obviously going to be

continued news reports coming out in the next couple days.

We're going to ask you to minimize, you know, your reading

of that. I think that there's a lot of what I call flurry

of activity right now. There are what I call the "talking

heads" -- some are astute; some are not quite as astute --

and they refer to that on television, but they're the news

people who supposedly have opinions.

1

2

3

408:23

5

608:23

708:24

8

9

10

1108:24

12

13

1408:24

1508:24

16

1708:24

1808:24

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


16



I don't think, counsel, we can, other than

sequestering the jury, which I don't think any of us are in

favor of, cut them off from the news. I think we need to

continually admonish the jury that whatever they're hearing

or seeing on television has no relevance to this case

concerning Orlando.

Is that acceptable to you, sir?

JUROR NO. 1: Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, acceptable to the government?

MS. HEINZ: Acceptable, Your Honor.


MS. CORRIGAN: Yes, Your Honor.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you very much.

If you would go back, though don't say anything

about why we're talking to each of you individually. You're

a pretty smart juror; you'll figure it out, but don't say

anything about the questions we're asking.

(Juror No. 1 exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: And the next one would be Scarlette

Rios.


THE COURT: Ms. Rios, if you'd come down and have

a seat in Seat No. 12. It's the bottom one and will save a

108:24

2

3

4

5

6

708:25

808:25

908:25

1008:25

1108:25

1208:25

1308:25

1408:25

1508:25

1608:25

17

18

19

2008:25

2108:25

22

2308:25

2408:26

25


17



lot of time.

Obviously, you must be aware of some shootings

that occurred down in Orlando, Florida. It was all over the

national news and the newspapers. Are you aware of that?

JUROR NO. 2: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, we obviously are

concerned, and we want it understood that that has

absolutely nothing to do with the two young men on trial in

this case, but we're aware of the inflammatory or

potentially inflammatory nature of that Florida incident.

I think that the critical question that we're

asking you is can you continue to be fair? Can you continue

to be that judge and not have the Orlando, Florida, news

carry over into any decision you might be making in this

case?

JUROR NO. 2: Yes.

THE COURT: I'm going to ask you that one more

time: Are you absolutely sure?

JUROR NO. 2: Yes.

THE COURT: Then you'll continue to follow our

admonition. We expect there will be continued coverage down

in Orlando, et cetera. We're not gonna sequester you or cut

off news sources. That's impossible in this day and age.

But you continue to recognize that's an unrelated matter?

JUROR NO. 2: Yes.08:27

1

208:26

3

4

508:26

608:26

7

8

9

10

1108:26

12

13

14

15

1608:26

1708:26

18

1908:26

2008:26

21

22

23

24

25


18



THE COURT: Fair enough.

Counsel on behalf of the government, do you have

questions or concerns?

MS. HEINZ: No, Your Honor.


MS. CORRIGAN: No, Your Honor. Thank you.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

We're satisfied.


Go back in the jury room. Please don't share any

of the questions we're asking. We need to talk to each one

of you for a moment.


THE COURT: Juror No. 3, please. This would be

Jesus Ambriz.


THE COURT: Sir, have a seat in Seat No. 12. We

know you're Juror No. 3, but -- I assume you're aware --

most the country is -- of some shootings that took place

down in Orlando, Florida.

JUROR NO. 3: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Do you have any loved ones or any

persons that you might know as friends who were victims of

that shooting?

108:27

208:27

3

408:27

508:27

608:27

708:27

808:27

9

1008:27

1108:27

12

13

1408:27

1508:27

16

1708:27

1808:28

19

20

21

2208:28

2308:28

24

25


19



JUROR NO. 3: No, I'm not.

THE COURT: We want to remind you that that

incident in Florida has nothing do with this trial or the

two young men on this trial, but we're worried about the

inflammatory nature of that. So we're talking to each of

you individually.

Would you continue to be fair in this matter? In

other words, would you continue to be that judge who's

neutral. You've heard part of the government case. We

haven't heard from the defense yet. You've been admonished

to not form or express any opinion.

Would you continue to be fair?

JUROR NO. 3: Absolutely.

THE COURT: I'm going to ask that one more time to

be sure: Are you sure?

JUROR NO. 3: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, we expect that the Orlando

shooting is going to continue to get increased coverage.

Politicians are going to start marking statements. The news

reports are going to come out. We want it clearly

understood and will continue to admonish you along the way

that that is an unrelated event that has nothing to do with

this trial.

Is that acceptable to you?

JUROR NO. 3: Yes, it is.08:29

108:28

208:28

3

4

5

6

708:28

8

9

10

11

1208:28

1308:29

1408:29

15

1608:29

1708:29

18

19

20

21

22

23

2408:29

25


20



THE COURT: Let me turn to the government. Do you

have questions or concerns, Counsel?

MS. HEINZ: Yes, Your Honor. That's fine.

THE COURT: Any concerns?

MS. HEINZ: I'm sorry, Your Honor. No, no

concerns.

THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, do you have any concerns

or questions?


THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, any concerns or

questions?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

We're satisfied.


Sir, if you would go back in the jury room, then.

Please don't share the questions we're asking. We're going

to talk to each of you individually just to make certain.

JUROR NO. 3: Okay.


THE COURT: Juror No. 4, please, Andrew Huang.


THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Huang, if you would

have a seat. Be seated in Seat No. 12 for a moment. It's a

lot easier. We know you're Juror No. 4.

But over the weekend, there was a shooting down in08:30

108:29

2

308:29

408:29

508:29

6

708:29

8

908:29

1008:29

11

1208:29

13

1408:29

1508:29

16

17

1808:29

1908:29

2008:29

2108:30

2208:30

23

24

25


21



Orlando, Florida.

JUROR NO. 4: Correct.

THE COURT: We assume that most of the country's

heard about that from the press. Have you heard about that

incident?

JUROR NO. 4: I do.

THE COURT: Do you have any friends, loved ones,

anyone you know who are victims of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 4: No.

THE COURT: We wanted to remind you that that

shooting has absolutely nothing to do with these two young

men on trial in this case; but we're concerned about the

inflammatory nature of that, so we're talking to each of you

individually.

Do you feel that you would continue to be fair and

impartial on this case; in other words, be that neutral

judge and make certain you put that Florida incident

completely out of your discussions and thought process

concerning --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Sure, I do.

THE COURT: -- this matter? I'm gonna ask one

more time: Are you certain of that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm certain.

THE COURT: Okay. During the course of the next

couple weeks, while we're still in session -- we're moving

1

208:30

308:30

4

5

608:30

708:30

8

908:30

1008:30

11

12

13

14

1508:30

16

17

18

19

2008:31

2108:31

22

2308:31

2408:31

25


22



much quicker than we anticipated -- there's going to be

increased coverage of the Orlando shooting. There are going

to be people on television referring to it and casting

opinions on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and papers, et cetera. If

you're reading any of that, we're going to continue to

admonish you, and even if we don't, to disregard that and

any -- any thought process that that has anything to do with

this matter. Is that acceptable to you?

JUROR NO. 4: Yes.

THE COURT: Let me turn to the government, then.

Counsel on behalf of the government, are you satisfied?

MS. HEINZ: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any questions?


THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, same question.


THE COURT: Satisfied?


THE COURT: All right. Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, are you

satisfied?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I'm satisfied, Your Honor.

Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Then, sir, thank you very

much.

JUROR NO. 4: Thank you.08:32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

908:31

1008:31

11

1208:31

1308:31

1408:31

1508:32

1608:32

1708:32

1808:32

1908:32

20

2108:32

22

2308:32

24

25


23



THE COURT: And please don't share the questions

with any of the other jurors. We're going through all 18 of

you just to make certain.

JUROR NO. 4: Okay.


THE COURT: It would be Enrique Mejia.


THE COURT: Mr. Mejia, would you seat yourself in

Seat No. 12. You don't have to go all the way up to your

seat. You're Juror No. 5.

Over the weekend, there was a shooting down in

Orlando, Florida. Are you aware of that?

JUROR NO. 5: Yeah.

THE COURT: We think most of the country is. What

we're concerned about is the inflammatory nature of that,

and we want to make certain that it's understood by you,

individually, and the rest of the jurors, individually and

collectively, that that shooting has nothing to do with the

case involving these two young men on trial in our court.

JUROR NO. 5: Right.

THE COURT: Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 5: Yes.

THE COURT: So the critical question is, because

of the continued press coverage -- and there's going to be

press coverage in the future concerning that Orlando

108:32

2

3

408:32

508:32

608:32

708:32

808:32

9

10

1108:32

12

1308:32

1408:33

15

16

17

18

19

2008:33

2108:33

2208:33

2308:33

24

25


24



shooting -- that you continue -- strike that.

Would you be fair and impartial in this case going

forward?

JUROR NO. 5: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to ask that one

more time to be absolutely certain. Are you sure of that?

JUROR NO. 5: Yes.

THE COURT: That means you're gonna remain as a

judge. You've heard portions of the government case. You

haven't heard from the defense yet. We haven't heard

closing argument, instruction. You'll continue to be

neutral?

JUROR NO. 5: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Now, um, in addition,

there's going to be significant coverage, I'm assuming,

coming out of Orlando. We're gonna have people on

television giving their viewpoint, et cetera. Presidential

nominees are gonna be giving their viewpoints --

JUROR NO. 5: Yeah.

THE COURT: -- trust me, on both sides. We're not

gonna sequester you. There's no way in this modern age of

telecommunication and news that we can lock you up in a

hotel like the good old days and cut off all of your news,

and we wouldn't do it anyway. We just want you to have that

continuing admonition and understand that there's no

1

208:33

3

408:33

508:33

6

708:33

808:33

9

10

11

12

1308:33

1408:33

15

16

17

18

1908:34

2008:34

21

22

23

24

25


25



relationship to the matter before you today and the next

week or two with this Orlando shooting. Fair enough?

JUROR NO. 5: Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, are you satisfied?





MS. CORRIGAN: No, Your Honor. Thank you. I'm

satisfied.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: We're satisfied. Thank you,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, sir.

Please don't share this with the other jurors. We want to

talk to each of you briefly.

JUROR NO. 5: Okay.


THE COURT: And I believe it would be Anthony

Traviglia.


THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Over the weekend,

there was a shooting down in Orlando, Florida. Are you

aware of that?

JUROR NO. 6: Yeah.08:35

1

2

308:34

408:34

508:34

608:34

708:34

808:34

908:34

10

1108:34

1208:34

13

1408:34

15

16

1708:34

1808:34

1908:34

20

2108:35

2208:35

23

24

25


26



THE COURT: I think most of the country's aware of

it. And, of course, we're concerned, and we wanna make

certain that it's understood that that shooting in Orlando

has nothing to do with the case involving the two young men

in this court.

JUROR NO. 6: Of course.

THE COURT: But we wanna be certain by talking to

each of the jurors because it's inflammatory.

And would you continue to be fair in this matter

concerning this trial and these two men?

JUROR NO. 6: Yes.

THE COURT: And I'm gonna be -- just ask it one

more time to be absolutely certain. Are you certain of

that?

JUROR NO. 6: I am.

THE COURT: So you'll remain that neutral judge;

in other words, listening to all of the evidence? You're

not gonna make up your mind or form an opinion, and you can

put this Florida shooting at least off to the side and not

have any reflection in this matter?

JUROR NO. 6: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, the Florida case is gonna get

continued coverage from Orlando, and there's gonna be people

on television, even presidential candidates are gonna start

talking about what their thoughts and feelings are.

108:35

2

3

4

5

608:35

708:35

8

908:35

10

1108:36

1208:36

13

14

1508:36

1608:36

17

18

19

20

2108:36

2208:36

23

24

25


27



Whatever that colloquy is, whatever that discussion, we know

we can't cut you off from news sources, from television. We

just want it understood that's a completely separate matter

unrelated to our case. Is that acceptable to you?

JUROR NO. 6: Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, are you satisfied?

MS. HEINZ: Government is satisfied.



THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, are you satisfied?



MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, are you satisfied?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Just one question.

THE COURT: Ask it of me, and I'll ask the juror.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: That he doesn't know anybody.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Do you know anybody? Do you have any friends or

relatives down there?

JUROR NO. 6: No.

THE COURT: And you don't know anybody who's a

victim of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 6: No.

THE COURT: Thank you. I'd forgotten that.08:37

1

2

3

4

508:36

608:36

708:36

808:36

908:36

1008:36

1108:36

1208:36

1308:36

1408:37

1508:37

1608:37

1708:37

1808:37

1908:37

20

2108:37

2208:37

23

2408:37

25


28



Do you want me to call back in to any of the other

jurors?

MS. CORRIGAN: I think you did as well, now that I

think about. And it was Rios.

THE COURT: I apologize for that. Please remind

me.

We're gonna send you back to the jury room.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay.

THE COURT: Please don't discuss our questions.

We're asking each juror separately.

JUROR NO. 6: All right.


THE COURT: I think it might've been Scarlette

Rios. We'll take the next juror and come back with

Scarlette Rios. Thank you for reminding me.


THE COURT: Thank you. Just take Seat No. 12, the

first seat. You're Michelle Hutchinson; is that correct?

JUROR NO. 7: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Over the weekend there was a shooting

down in Orlando, Florida. Are you aware of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 7: Vaguely, yes.

THE COURT: I think most of the country is, and if

not, it's on every television station and every newspaper.

Do you have any friends or relatives or anyone you08:38

108:37

2

308:37

4

508:37

6

708:37

808:37

908:37

10

1108:37

1208:37

1308:37

14

15

1608:37

1708:37

18

1908:38

2008:38

21

2208:38

2308:38

24

25


29



know who's a victim of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 7: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. We're concerned that there

might be something inflammatory, and we're concerned and

want it understood that that shooting in Florida has nothing

to do with the trial involving the two young men before us

in this matter.

JUROR NO. 7: I agree, and I understand.

THE COURT: Does that mean -- well, would you

continue to be fair in this matter, then?


THE COURT: And would you put that other matter to

the side? In other words, by that, you recognize it has

nothing do with this case?


THE COURT: You're sure of that?

JUROR NO. 7: Yes.

THE COURT: The case in Orlando is gonna continue

to get increased press coverage. I have no doubt about

that. Even presidential presumptive nominees are starting

to make a lot of comments. And it's impossible to sequester

you. In the 1930s, we'd put you in a hotel room and cut off

all news sources. We're not gonna do that. So we just want

you to obey the admonition and recognize that Orlando matter

has nothing to do with our case.

1

208:38

308:38

4

5

6

7

808:38

908:38

10

1108:38

1208:38

13

14

1508:38

1608:38

1708:38

1808:39

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


30



Is that acceptable?

JUROR NO. 7: Yes.

THE COURT: Let me turn to the government. Is

this person acceptable, Counsel?

MS. HEINZ: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I got

distracted. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Is there any concern, any reason for

cause?


THE COURT: Acceptable?




THE COURT: Then let me turn to Ms. Corrigan. Is

this person acceptable to the defense?

MS. CORRIGAN: Yes, Your Honor. No questions.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: You were fine, Your Honor.

She's acceptable and no cause.


If you'd go back in the jury room. We're gonna

talk to each of you very quickly this morning.


THE COURT: (To the clerk:) Deb, could you bring

out Scarlette Rios again. I forgot to ask her one question.

108:39

208:39

308:39

4

508:39

6

708:39

8

908:39

1008:39

1108:39

1208:39

1308:39

1408:39

15

1608:39

1708:39

1808:39

19

2008:39

2108:39

22

2308:40

2408:40

25


31



(Juror No. 2 recalled and seated.)

MS. CORRIGAN: Your Honor, that last juror,

Ms. Hutchinson, the Court did not ask her not to talk to

anybody going back there. Perhaps she should be reminded

quickly.

THE COURT: Ms. Rios, I forgot to ask you one

question. Do you know anybody down in Florida who's a

victim of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 2: No.

THE COURT: Counsel, any further questions?


MS. CORRIGAN: No, Your Honor.


THE COURT: Is it acceptable if Debbie asks

Ms. Hutchinson not to mention any questions that we asked.




THE COURT: (To the clerk:) Debbie, tell

Ms. Hutchinson not to mention any questions to the other

jurors.


THE COURT: And would you bring us Donald Tuleja.


THE COURT: Sir, if you would have a seat.08:41

108:40

208:40

3

4

5

608:40

7

8

908:40

1008:40

1108:40

1208:40

1308:40

1408:40

15

1608:40

1708:40

1808:41

1908:41

20

21

2208:41

2308:41

2408:41

25


32



There's been a shooting down in Orlando, Florida,

over the weekend. Are you aware of that?

JUROR NO. 8: Yes.

THE COURT: I think most of the country is. Do

you have any friends or do you know anybody who's a victim

of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 8: I do not.

THE COURT: Okay. I want to say again that that

that shooting in Orlando has nothing to do with the case

presently before us. But we're concerned about the

inflammatory nature that might have some carryover.

Would you be -- continue to be fair in this matter

and, you know, be that neutral juror, or would there be any

concern about -- on our part, about you being a juror in

this matter going forward?

JUROR NO. 8: I'd be fine.

THE COURT: Okay. You understand that's a

completely separate matter?

JUROR NO. 8: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. And are you sure of that?

JUROR NO. 8: I am.

THE COURT: Okay. We just need that absolute

clarity today.

There's going to be, I think, actually, increased

press coverage: CNN, MSNBC, FOX, all the networks are going

108:41

2

308:41

408:41

5

6

708:41

808:41

9

10

11

1208:42

13

14

15

1608:42

1708:42

18

1908:42

2008:42

2108:42

2208:42

23

2408:42

25


33



to continue; they're even gonna have experts in. And we

wanna remind you that whatever's said about Orlando has

nothing do with our matter.


JUROR NO. 8: Yes.

THE COURT: We're gonna ask you not to ask or

mention any of the questions we're asking you separately to

any of the other jurors, but we're talking to each of you

individually just to make certain that that -- each juror

would be fair and impartial going forward.

Counsel, do you have -- are you -- any issues for

cause concerning this juror?

MS. HEINZ: None, Your Honor. Thank you.





THE COURT: Cause?




THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, any issues for

cause?


THE COURT: Any questions I've forgotten, because08:43

1

2

3

408:42

508:42

608:42

7

8

9

10

1108:43

12

1308:43

1408:43

1508:43

1608:43

1708:43

1808:43

1908:43

2008:43

2108:43

2208:43

23

2408:43

25


34



I've forgotten a couple?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: We're satisfied, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sir, don't say anything to the other

jurors. We'll be right with you. Let us talk to the rest

of the folks.


THE COURT: Lee Okubo next.


THE COURT: Ms. Okubo, if you'd come in, just have

a seat in any of the seats.



JUROR NO. 9: Yes.

THE COURT: I think most of the country's aware of

that.

Do you have any friends, relatives, anyone you

know who's a victim of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 9: No.

THE COURT: Okay. We wanna make certain that

there's no carryover from that shooting to this case, any

inflammatory, let's say, carryover and remind you that that

shooting in Florida has nothing to do with the matter of

these two young men who are on trial in our case.

Do you understand that?

JUROR NO. 9: Yes, I do.08:44

1

208:43

308:43

4

5

608:43

708:43

808:44

908:44

10

1108:44

12

1308:44

1408:44

15

1608:44

17

1808:44

1908:44

20

21

22

23

2408:44

25


35



THE COURT: Now, that -- but the critical question

for us is, would you continue to be fair in this matter and

impartial? Would you continue to be fair and impartial in

our case?

JUROR NO. 9: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you sure?

JUROR NO. 9: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

That Florida shooting's going to have increased

coverage. Nominees for the President are making speeches

about it, and major newspaper coverages or news stations

will continue to have experts, supposedly, come in and

discuss these matters. We wanna make certain that if you're

listening to that, that you continue to understand that

Orlando has nothing to do with our matter that's before us.


JUROR NO. 9: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Let me -- just a moment.

Counsel, do you have any issues for cause?

MS. HEINZ: None, Your Honor.



THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, do you have any issues

for cause?

MS. CORRIGAN: No, Your Honor.08:45

108:45

2

3

4

508:45

608:45

708:45

808:45

908:45

10

11

12

13

14

15

1608:45

1708:45

1808:45

1908:45

2008:45

2108:45

2208:45

2308:45

24

25


36






cause?



MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No. Thank you.

THE COURT: Please don't share the questions we're

asking each of you. They're brief, but we wanted to talk to

each of you individually for a moment. So we'll be right

with you.


THE COURT: (To the clerk:) If you would get the

next juror, Deb, for a moment and take Ms. Okubo back. We'd

like to see Mr. Alan De La Rosa Zamora.


THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Over the weekend,

there was a shooting down in Texas -- or strike that. Down

in Orlando -- my apologies -- down in Orlando, Florida. Are

you aware of that?

JUROR NO. 10: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you have any friends or relatives

who were the victims of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 10: NO.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, we're concerned because08:46

108:45

208:45

308:45

4

508:46

608:46

708:46

808:46

9

10

11

1208:46

1308:46

14

15

1608:46

1708:46

18

19

20

2108:46

2208:46

23

2408:46

25


37



that shooting in Orlando has nothing to do with the issues

involving the two young men on trial in this matter. But we

need to be certain about fairness.

Would you be fair and impartial as a juror going

forward with this matter?

JUROR NO. 10: Yes.

THE COURT: And I want to make that absolutely

clear. I'm gonna ask you again: Are you absolutely sure of

that?

JUROR NO. 10: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. You understand that that's a

separate matter. And it's gonna get coverage, I promise

you, in the news; in fact, Presidential nominees are going

to be making speeches. Different television networks will

have experts come in. And there's no way that we can

sequester you from that kind of information. As long as you

recognize that going forward Orlando has nothing to do with

our case. Acceptable to you?

JUROR NO. 10: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, issues for cause?


THE COURT: Acceptable to you, then? Any

questions?

MS. HEINZ: Yes. No questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, acceptable for cause?08:47

1

2

3

408:47

5

608:47

708:47

8

9

1008:47

1108:47

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1908:47

2008:47

2108:47

2208:47

23

2408:47

25


38



MS. CORRIGAN: Yes, Your Honor, and no questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, acceptable for

cause?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Acceptable, Your Honor, yes.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Sir, please don't share

what we're asking. These brief questions are just designed

to talk to each of you individually.


THE COURT: Asela Omiligespiritu.


THE COURT: If you would have a seat in any of the

seats; it doesn't matter.

Over the weekend, there was a shooting in Orlando,

Florida. Are you aware of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 11: Yes, I am, because I have a nephew

who lives in Orlando.

THE COURT: The nephew lives in Orlando.

JUROR NO. 11: Yes.

THE COURT: Was he a victim of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 11: He wasn't, but he work -- he's a

nurse, so he work at the Orlando Regional Hospital. We have

a discussion. (Verbatim.)

THE COURT: Ah.08:49

108:48

208:48

3

408:48

508:48

608:48

708:48

8

9

1008:48

1108:48

1208:49

1308:49

14

1508:49

16

1708:49

18

1908:49

2008:49

2108:49

2208:49

23

24

25


39



JUROR NO. 11: I didn't share. I cannot discuss

more. I just wanna make sure that he is safe and he's okay.

And that's it.

THE COURT: Did he share with you the victims that

were coming in? In other words, he must have been involved

in treating some of the people who were shot?

JUROR NO. 11: He's a trauma nurse, and he said,

"I am on a 16-hour shift. I'm okay. I'm safe." I said,

"That's all I need to know."

THE COURT: There was no further discussion about

what he'd --

JUROR NO. 11: There was no --

THE COURT: Was there any further discussion about

what he had seen, the number of people being brought to the

hospital or their condition?

JUROR NO. 11: No. He said, "I'm concentrating on

my work," and I said, "That's what you have to do, and I

don't wanna discuss more about this because I'm on a jury at

this point."

THE COURT: So you checked on his safety?

JUROR NO. 11: Just for his safety.

THE COURT: We're concerned about any inflammatory

nature of that incident having any effect on our trial,

because you understand that that Orlando shooting has

nothing to do with the two young men on trial in our court?

108:49

2

3

408:49

5

6

708:49

8

9

1008:50

11

1208:50

1308:50

14

15

1608:50

17

18

19

2008:50

2108:50

2208:50

23

24

25


40



JUROR NO. 11: Yes. I stay away from TV, and I

stay away from discussing it with my husband.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you believe that you'd be --

continue to be fair and impartial, then, in this case?

JUROR NO. 11: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you sure?

JUROR NO. 11: I am very sure. That's why I stay

away from TV and radio.

THE COURT: Now, there will be increased coverage,

I promise you, on TV and radio, and we don't expect that all

of that can be shut off; but we would continue to remind you

that that Orlando shooting has nothing to do with this case.

Is that understood?

JUROR NO. 11: Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, do you have any issues for

cause?




THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, any issues for cause?





cause?

108:50

2

308:50

4

508:50

608:50

708:50

8

908:50

10

11

12

1308:51

1408:51

1508:51

16

1708:51

1808:51

1908:51

2008:51

2108:51

2208:51

2308:51

2408:51

25


41



MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No, but maybe a question or

two, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ask me the question, Counsel. I'll

ask her. I want to make sure that they're appropriate

questions.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: The time when she spoke with

her son?

THE COURT: What time did you speak with your son?

JUROR NO. 11: Nephew. I got a text from a cousin

in the Philippines to check on our nephew.

THE COURT: Nephew.

JUROR NO. 11: It's a nephew.

THE COURT: It's a nephew.

JUROR NO. 11: And I didn't know about it because

my TV was off, and my -- basically, electronic was off

because it's the weekend. So I pick up the land line and

call him directly on his cellphone. This was around, I

would say, 7:00 o'clock in the morning California time.

THE COURT: Was that on Sunday?

JUROR NO. 11: It was yesterday morning around

7:00 o'clock.

THE COURT: Okay. Counsel?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I'm concerned 'cause I'm not

sure they made the connection.

THE COURT: Well, why don't you just ask her.08:52

108:51

2

308:51

4

5

608:51

7

808:51

908:51

10

1108:51

1208:51

1308:51

1408:51

15

16

17

18

1908:52

2008:52

21

2208:52

2308:52

24

25


42



I'll let you do that.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Okay. At 7:00 o'clock in the

morning, I don't think it had been reported.

THE COURT: No, Counsel.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Any affiliation. I'm just

wondering how she made the connection to this case.

THE COURT: I don't understand the question.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I'm trying to frame it.

THE COURT: It had been well reported. It

occurred at 2:00 a.m.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I'm not sure how to frame it.

THE COURT: I'm letting you ask the question, but

it's confusing.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Could we sidebar for a second?

THE COURT: Well, would you go outside in the

hallway for just a moment with Debbie. We'll bring you

right back in.


THE COURT: Counsel, the difficulty is it occurred

at 2:00 a.m. early Sunday morning.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Right.

THE COURT: News press, I believe, were picking it

up almost immediately. It went national; it went viral.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Right.

THE COURT: By the time the West Coast woke up, it08:53

1

208:52

3

408:52

508:52

6

708:52

808:52

908:52

10

1108:52

1208:52

13

1408:52

1508:53

16

17

1808:53

1908:53

20

2108:53

2208:53

23

2408:53

25


43



was on the news. So what's your question?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Um, I saw it first headed into

church, and it seemed to me like it was just a mass

shooting. And I texted to someone who called my attention

to it, and I said -- shooting up a gay bar. I don't make

the connection immediately to ISIS or ISIL, but she did in

her conversation with her nephew.

THE COURT: No, no. She said that she checked on

his safety. She never said she made a connection to ISIL.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Well, she did because she

said, "I don't wanna talk anymore about it because I'm a

juror in this case."

So I'm thinking that either she put the steps

together before it was reported that was ISIL.

THE COURT: What question would you like to ask

her?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I don't know. ISIL didn't

take credit for this that I'm aware of until after I got out

of church somewhere around 1:00 o'clock.

THE COURT: I'm gonna let you ask the question.

Tell me the question you want to ask her.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I don't know how to frame it.

I don't know how to frame it, but that's where I want to get

it.

MS. CORRIGAN: Your Honor, I think in terms of the08:54

1

208:53

3

4

5

6

7

808:53

9

1008:54

11

12

1308:54

14

1508:54

16

1708:54

18

19

2008:54

21

2208:54

23

24

25


44



timeline, he was in church. I know I was up at about 5:00

working out, and it was on the news at that point. The

9-1-1 call that the shooter made was already out in public

probably by, I don't know, I'd say 7:00-ish, but that was

when he claimed to be connected with ISIL. And then I think

the ISIL taking responsibility thing, I think you're

correct, or codefendant's lawyer is correct; it came out

later in the morning, early afternoon. But either way, the

ISIL issue was in full, uh, uh --

THE COURT: But she's never said that. She didn't

say that when she came into court. The question is if you

want me to inquire in that area, I would be happy to. All

she said so far is that "I was checking on my nephew's

safety." Now, if there's information -- and "I'm a juror on

this case."

You may be absolutely right. Maybe she's made a

connection because, as Ms. Corrigan said, by that time, it

was common knowledge that the shooter was claiming an

affiliation with ISIL. I'm happy to inquire.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: See, I didn't -- I wasn't --

THE COURT: I encourage you to let me inquire.

That's why I'm asking you the question, because if there's

not cause, you end up heightening it. It's easier for the

Court to make another inquiry.

Now, if you want to ask the questions, I'm happy08:55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1008:55

11

12

13

14

15

1608:55

17

18

19

2008:55

2108:55

22

23

24

25


45



to let you do so. I'm happy to let any counsel ask any

juror questions.

The difficulty, though, is if you got yourself in

a box and there wasn't cause, then you've borne (sic) into a

jury when the Court can ask the same question, quite

frankly, in a way that reflects on the Court asking it, not

you. But if you would like to ask a question, I'm happy to

let you.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I'm just in the rock and the

hard place because we've had several mass shootings where

the initial press jumped to conclusions. But since I don't

know what her initial information about the incident was,

how did she jump to the conclusion that that incident --

maybe she heard from her aunt -- ISIS shot up a bar in

Orlando, if she heard it that way.

THE COURT: Tell me the question you'd like to

ask, or I will just let you ask whatever question you

choose.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: She said she could be fair.

I'll pass, Your Honor.

MS. CORRIGAN: Or perhaps what about asking her --

she made the statement that she said to her nephew, I don't

want any further -- essentially, that I'm not gonna ask you

anything further; I'm on a jury. Perhaps a general question

as to why she said that. And then inquire whether after

1

2

308:55

4

5

6

7

8

908:56

10

11

12

13

14

15

1608:56

17

18

1908:56

20

2108:56

22

23

24

25


46



that she can still be fair. I mean, maybe that's what -- is

that what you're looking for?

THE COURT: Do you want to ask a question, or do

you want me to ask the question? So far, I'm assuming you

wanted the Court to ask questions, then saying "Do you have

any questions" as a follow up, but your choice.

MS. CORRIGAN: I don't need anything further. I'm

fine.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I think I'm fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I want to be absolutely certain.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I'm certain I'm comfortable

with this juror. She's promised, and I don't believe she's

gonna allow that to influence her decision in this case.

THE COURT: All right. If everybody's satisfied,

then.

(To the clerk:) Deb, ask that juror to remain back

in the jury room and ask the next juror to come in, and that

would be Rosemary Valdovinos.

So there's no issue for cause with that juror; is

that correct, government?

MS. HEINZ: That's correct, Your Honor.




MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Yeah. No issue for cause.08:57

1

2

308:57

4

5

6

708:57

8

908:57

1008:57

1108:57

12

13

1408:57

15

1608:57

17

18

1908:57

20

2108:57

2208:57

2308:57

2408:57

25


47



THE COURT: All right. Now, when the next juror's

coming in, in the meantime, we can decide what to do about

that every night, whether we want to heighten it, whether

you want an admonition every night. Let's decide that by

the end of the day how we wanna conduct ourselves, whether

you want a continuing admonishment or not. On one hand,

it's good; on the other hand, it heightens the issue.


THE COURT: Morning. Over the weekend,

Ms. Valdovinos --

JUROR NO. 12: Good morning.

THE COURT: -- there was a shooting down in

Orlando, Florida, over the weekend. Are you aware of that?

JUROR NO. 12: Yes.

THE COURT: I think most of the country is by this

time. Do you have any loved ones or friends who were

victims of that shooting?

JUROR NO. 12: No.

THE COURT: That incident in -- shooting in

Orlando has nothing to do with the two young men who are on

trial before this jury. But we're concerned about there

being any potential, you know, inflammatory nature that

would have some carryover.

Would you be fair and impartial in this matter

going forward as a juror?

108:58

2

3

4

5

6

7

808:58

908:58

10

1108:58

1208:58

13

1408:58

1508:58

16

17

1808:58

1908:58

20

21

22

23

2408:59

25


48



JUROR NO. 12: I thought about it.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 12: After the incident and actually

this morning as well. Um, maybe 'cause it's so recent, I

really do feel very emotional about it.

THE COURT: Yeah.

JUROR NO. 12: My feelings are strong and, um,

I -- like I said, I thought about it, and I think I would

have a very difficult time --

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR NO. 12: -- putting those feelings aside

'cause they're very strong.

THE COURT: Do you feel there might be some

carryover from that shooting into the matter before you

today?

JUROR NO. 12: Unfortunately, I do.

THE COURT: We appreciate that. Would you remain

out in the hallway for just a moment. Let me talk to

counsel for just a minute.

JUROR NO. 12: Sure, sure.


THE COURT: Now, counsel, there's a lot of

questions that can be asked from this point forward; in

other words, we can go back and forth with rehabilitation,

non-rehabilitation. I think you just got a very honest

108:59

208:59

308:59

4

5

608:59

708:59

8

9

1008:59

1108:59

12

1308:59

14

15

1608:59

1708:59

18

19

2008:59

2108:59

2209:00

23

24

25


49



concern. And I would be prepared to excuse this juror for

cause. I mean, we can go back and forth about

rehabilitating and what degree and are you absolutely

certain. But I think you just got real clarity from this

juror.

MS. HEINZ: The government would stip.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Stip.

MS. CORRIGAN: Stip.

THE COURT: All right. Bring Ms. Valdovinos in.

(Juror No. 12 recalled and seated.)

THE COURT: Ms. Valdovinos, have a seat for just a

moment. First of all, we always want to thank you. All

sides have stipulated and they're gonna excuse you.

JUROR NO. 12: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't think anyone wants you to go

through that struggle over the next couple weeks. And

you've given us a very honest answer, and I think on behalf

of the government and each of defense counsel, they're very

appreciative. So it's kind of unanimous: Let's let that

nice lady go about her business. Okay?

JUROR NO. 12: Okay.

THE COURT: If you would be so kind, though, I

don't want to put you back in the jury room for a moment.

Do you have all of your effects with you at the present

time?

1

2

3

4

5

609:00

709:00

809:00

909:00

1009:00

1109:00

12

13

1409:00

1509:00

16

17

18

19

20

2109:01

2209:01

23

24

25


50



JUROR NO. 12: No. My purse is still in there.

THE COURT: Okay. Where is your purse located?

JUROR NO. 12: In the jury room.

THE COURT: Where is it?

JUROR NO. 12: By the chair where I'm standing.

THE COURT: Better yet, why don't you get your

purse, come back into court, but don't make any statement to

any of the jurors.

Would that be acceptable to you?

JUROR NO. 12: That's fine.

THE COURT: Don't say, "I'm leaving the jury."

Don't do anything. Just go get your purse and come back

with us.

JUROR NO. 12: That's fine.

THE COURT: Okay.


THE COURT: And, Counsel, let's just send her home

from this point forward. Let's not have any further mixing

with the jury. Acceptable?



MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Yes.

(Juror No. 12 returns to the courtroom.)

JUROR NO. 12 EXCUSED

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Valdovinos, we're gonna09:02

109:01

209:01

309:01

409:01

509:01

609:01

7

8

909:01

1009:01

1109:01

12

13

1409:01

1509:01

1609:01

1709:01

18

19

2009:01

2109:02

2209:02

2309:02

2409:02

25


51



thank and excuse you at this time. You're free to go. You

can talk to anybody about the case now, but, please, of

course, none of the jurors. If you've become friends with

any of them, any of the alternates, no conversation, no

contact. Is that acceptable?

JUROR NO. 12: That's acceptable.

THE COURT: Thank you for your service.

JUROR NO. 12: Thank you.

THE COURT: Counsel, any further admonition needed

by the Court?

MS. HEINZ: Not from the government.

THE COURT: Counsel?


THE COURT: Counsel?



(To the clerk:) Deb, as soon as you come back, if

we can see alternate number -- well, alternate Robert Roy.


THE COURT: Now, as we're getting Mr. Roy, look at

your notes. Of course, this has been inartfully done. I'd

rather have a conversation. So if there's additional

questions or concerns with the first eleven, I'm happy to

open that back up again and bring them in. So look at your

notes one more time and make certain. But let's go through

1

2

3

4

5

609:02

709:02

809:02

909:02

10

1109:02

1209:02

1309:02

1409:02

1509:02

1609:02

1709:02

18

1909:03

2009:03

21

22

23

24

25


52



the six alternates.

MS. HEINZ: Your Honor, her notebook is on the --

THE CLERK: I'll grab it.

(Alternate Juror called in and seated.)

THE COURT: Mr. Roy, anyplace you'd like to be

seated is acceptable. Over the weekend, there was a

shooting down in Orlando, Florida. Are you aware of that?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes, I am, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Most of the country is, from the news

press, et cetera.

Do you have any friends, relatives, acquaintances

who were victims of that shooting?

ALTERNATE JUROR: No, I don't.

THE COURT: From our perspective we're worried

about the inflammatory nature of that, but we're also very

aware that that shooting has nothing to do with the present

matter before us. But we need to make certain that the

jurors are fair. And that is, would you continue to be fair

in this matter going forward as a juror?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Certainly, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. You understand that that

shooting in Orlando has nothing to do with the two young men

on trial here.

ALTERNATE JUROR: I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And to be sure, are you absolutely09:04

1

209:03

309:03

409:03

509:03

6

7

809:03

909:03

10

1109:03

12

1309:04

1409:04

15

16

17

18

19

2009:04

2109:04

22

23

2409:04

25


53



certain of that?

ALTERNATE JUROR: I'm very certain.

THE COURT: The case down in Orlando is gonna

continue to get increased coverage, in my opinion. They're

gonna get experts on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, you name it. And we

just want to make certain going forward we're not going to

shut off sources of information. We can't in this

electronic age. But we're going to ask you to make certain

that you constantly are aware, remind yourself and obey the

admonition, that that is a totally unrelated matter.

Acceptable to you, sir?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes. Very acceptable, yes,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me turn to the government. Any

issues for cause, Counsel?


THE COURT: Any questions you'd like to ask?


THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, any questions you'd like

to ask?


THE COURT: Any issues for cause?


THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, any questions you'd

like to ask?

1

209:04

309:04

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1109:05

1209:05

13

1409:05

15

1609:05

1709:05

1809:05

1909:05

20

2109:05

2209:05

2309:05

2409:05

25


54





MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No, sir.

THE COURT: Then, sir, if you'd not discuss the

few brief questions we're asking each juror, but we wanted

to talk to you each individually. We'll come right back and

get all of you in a few moments.

(Alternate juror exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: (To the clerk:) The next juror,

Debbie, if you would be so kind, is Mr. Frank Fraga.

(Second alternate juror called in and seated.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fraga, anyplace you'd like to be

seated is acceptable.


Orlando, Florida. Are you aware of that shooting?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: I think most of the country is, from

television and the press.

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yeah.

THE COURT: Do you have any friends, relatives,

acquaintances who were victims of that shooting?

ALTERNATE JUROR: No, I do not.

THE COURT: Okay. That shooting in Orlando has

nothing to do with the two young men who are on trial in our

court.

109:05

209:05

309:05

409:05

5

6

7

809:05

909:05

10

1109:05

1209:06

13

1409:06

15

1609:06

1709:06

18

1909:06

2009:06

21

2209:06

2309:06

24

25


55



ALTERNATE JUROR: Correct.

THE COURT: But we wanted to make certain that

there was no potential carryover, anything inflammatory that

would affect our jury, so we're talking to each of you

individually.

Would you be fair and impartial once again going

forward in this matter?

ALTERNATE JUROR: I will continue as a juror with,

uh, nonbiased.

THE COURT: Okay. Are you absolutely certain?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: There's going to be increased

coverage, I promise you. Whatever the coverage has been

will increase over Orlando. You're going to have

Presidential presumptive nominees making statements. You're

going to have experts coming on different television

networks. We know it's impossible to cut off that kind of

information in the electronic age, but we constantly remind

you that the Florida incident has nothing to do with our

case.


ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Counsel, do you have any questions on

behalf of the government?

MS. HEINZ: No, Your Honor.09:07

109:06

209:06

3

4

5

609:07

7

809:07

9

1009:07

1109:07

1209:07

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2109:07

2209:07

2309:07

24

25


56





THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, any questions?




THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, any questions?




THE COURT: Thank you. If you would please not

discuss the few brief questions we're asking you. We want

to talk to each one of you.

ALTERNATE JUROR: Okay.


(Second alternate juror exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: (To the clerk:) I think Alan or Dillon

Cassell. Is that okay, Deb?

THE CLERK: Yes.

(Third alternate juror called in and seated.)

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyplace you'd

like to be seated is acceptable.

You're Mr. Cassell.


THE COURT: And over the weekend, Mr. Cassell,09:08

109:07

209:07

309:07

409:07

509:07

609:07

709:07

809:07

909:07

1009:08

1109:08

12

13

1409:08

1509:08

1609:08

1709:08

18

1909:08

2009:08

2109:08

22

2309:08

2409:08

25


57



there was a shooting down in Orlando, Florida. Are you

aware of that?


THE COURT: Yeah, it's been in all the newspapers,

all the television stations.

Did you have any relatives, friends, acquaintances

who are victims of that shooting?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Not that I know of.

THE COURT: Okay. That shooting has nothing to do

with the matter before this Court and these two young men,

the accusations made that you're going to attempt to decide.

But we're concerned about the inflammatory nature having any

of potential carryover.

Do you believe that you'd be fair and impartial

going forward in this matter?


THE COURT: Okay. And are you absolutely certain?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Absolutely.

THE COURT: Okay. The case is going to get, down

in Orlando, increased coverage. They're going to have

experts on television, different people saying things in

papers, the presumptive nominees are going to be making

speeches. And we recognize we can't cut off that source of

information in the electronic age, but we constantly remind

you and admonish you that that Orlando incident has nothing

1

2

309:08

409:08

5

609:08

7

809:09

909:09

10

11

12

13

1409:09

15

1609:09

1709:09

1809:09

1909:09

20

21

22

23

24

25


58



to do with the trial before us.

Is that acceptable to you, sir?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Let me turn to the government. Do you

have any questions?




THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, any questions?



MS. CORRIGAN: None.





THE COURT: Sir, please don't tell the other

jurors what we're asking. We're just talking to each of you

individually to make sure we have an absolutely fair jury.

Okay. Thank you very much.

(Third alternate juror exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: Scott Kirby.

(Fourth alternate juror called in and seated.)

THE COURT: Mr. Kirby, anyplace you'd like to be

seated is fine. Mr. Kirby, over the weekend down in

1

209:10

309:10

409:10

5

609:10

709:10

809:10

909:10

1009:10

1109:10

1209:10

1309:10

1409:10

1509:10

1609:10

1709:10

18

19

20

2109:10

2209:10

2309:10

2409:10

25


59



Orlando, Florida, there was a shooting. Are you aware of

that shooting?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: It's been in every newspaper. It's

been on every television.

Do you have any relatives, loved onces,

acquaintances, friends who were victims of that shooting?

ALTERNATE JUROR: I do not.

THE COURT: Okay. That shooting in Orlando has

nothing to do with the matter that you may be deciding. But

we are concerned about the inflammatory nature of that.

Everybody's going to be making a statement, the presumptive

nominees for both parties. Television will get in experts

to talk about it. And we wanna make certain going forward,

if you would be a fair and impartial juror. Would you?


THE COURT: Are you absolutely certain?


THE COURT: Okay. Then, in this electronic age,

we're not gonna sequester you. It's impossible to cut off

information. We just ask you to constantly remind yourself

and know that you're admonished that that incident in

Florida has nothing to do with our matter.

Acceptable to you, sir?

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes.09:12

1

2

309:11

409:11

5

609:11

7

809:11

909:11

10

11

12

13

14

15

1609:11

1709:11

1809:11

1909:11

20

21

22

23

2409:12

25


60



THE COURT: Government, do you have questions?




THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, do you have any

questions?



MS. CORRIGAN: None.




MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Kirby, please don't share that

with the last two alternates. We're going to talk to them

and then we'll bring you back in.

(Fourth alternate juror exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: Mr. Stalling (sic), please.

(Fifth alternate juror called in and seated.)

THE COURT: Mr. Stalling, anyplace you'd like to

be seated is acceptable.




THE COURT: I think everybody in the country is,09:13

109:12

209:12

309:12

409:12

509:12

6

709:12

809:12

909:12

1009:12

1109:12

1209:12

1309:12

1409:12

15

16

1709:12

1809:12

1909:12

2009:12

21

2209:12

23

2409:13

25


61



from the television, newspapers.

And do you have any friends, relatives, loved

ones, acquaintances who were the victims of that shooting?

ALTERNATE JUROR: No, I do not.

THE COURT: Okay. We want to make certain that

there's no carryover to this matter because it could be

inflammatory. That shooting in Texas -- I'm -- strike

that -- in Orlando has absolutely nothing to do with our

matter. But we wanna make certain if you'd be a fair and

impartial juror and continue to be so going forward.

ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes, I believe I can still be

fair.



THE COURT: Okay. We just wanna be absolutely

certain that that's the case with each individual juror

before we reassemble the jury this morning.

There's gonna be increased coverage, in my

opinion. In other words, you're just seeing the coverage

start. I think each television hist- -- will get experts

on, who give their opinion. You'll see that in the

newspapers. And we wanna make certain that -- mentally we

know we can't cut off that information -- but that that has

no carryover to our case and you'd continue to be fair and

impartial. Once again, is that acceptable to you?

1

209:13

3

409:13

509:13

6

7

8

9

10

1109:13

12

1309:13

1409:13

1509:13

16

17

1809:13

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


62




THE COURT: Let me ask the government if there are

any questions.




THE COURT: To Ms. Corrigan, any questions?



MS. CORRIGAN: None.





THE COURT: Then, sir, if you would go back to the

jury room. Please don't share our questions with Mr. Ortiz.

He's our last alternate.

(Fifth alternate juror exits the courtroom.)

(Sixth alternate juror called in and seated.)

THE COURT: Mr. Ortiz, if you'd have a seat. Any

seat's acceptable that you'd like to sit in.

Mr. Ortiz, over the weekend, there was a shooting

down in Texas -- strike that. I keep saying Texas. I

apologize. There was a shooting down in Orlando, Florida.

Do you recall -- or are you aware of that shooting?

109:14

209:14

3

409:14

509:14

609:14

709:14

809:14

909:14

1009:14

1109:14

1209:14

1309:14

1409:14

1509:14

16

17

1809:14

1909:14

2009:14

21

2209:15

23

24

25


63



ALTERNATE JUROR: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Every newspaper has picked it

up in the country. Every television station has. Is there

any relative, friend, acquaintance, loved one that you know

who was a victim of that shooting in Orlando, Florida?

ALTERNATE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: We want to make certain that there's

no carryover from that shooting in Orlando to the matter

involving the two young men with these accusations in our

trial; that that shooting has nothing to do with our case.

But we wanna know from each individual juror, and we're

asking you, would you be fair and impartial going forward in

deciding this matter?




THE COURT: Along the way, I think there's gonna

be increased coverage. In other words, everybody thinks

that the coverage is out now. I think every television

station's going to get an expert on and it's going to

continue on. Even the presumptive nominees are now making

statements about the Orlando, Florida, shooting.

And we're going to say to you that we want you to

continue to put that matter out of your mind -- out of your

mind's a bad word -- to separate that matter. It has

109:15

209:15

3

4

5

609:15

709:15

8

9

10

11

12

13

1409:16

1509:16

1609:16

1709:16

18

19

20

21

22

2309:16

24

25


64



nothing to do with our case and to continue to be fair and

impartial. Is that acceptable?


THE COURT: Counsel, any questions on behalf of

the government?




THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, any questions on behalf

of the defense?



MS. CORRIGAN: None.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No. Thank you, your Honor.



THE COURT: Sir, please go back with the jurors.

Please don't tell any of them the questions we're asking

you. We'll be right back with you in a few moments.

ALTERNATE JUROR: Okay.

(Sixth alternate juror exits the courtroom.)


THE COURT: Now, Counsel, let me say to you, as we

got started, I didn't want a script. I just wanted to talk

1

2

309:16

409:16

5

609:16

709:16

809:16

909:16

10

1109:16

1209:16

1309:16

1409:16

1509:17

1609:17

1709:17

1809:17

19

20

2109:17

2209:17

2309:17

2409:17

25


65



with them, but some things I wish I would have asked. For

instance, towards the end of the questioning, I started

asking about acquaintances. When we started the

questioning, I asked about relatives, friends, you know,

family members, sometimes family members and relatives. I

didn't use the word "acquaintances" until part way through.

Do you want me to make any additional inquiry?

I'm happy to, individually. If you have any additional

questions that either side would like me to ask to make

certain that you're comfortable for cause issues, I'd like

to see that in writing.

But your thoughts, Counsel.

MS. HEINZ: Your Honor, I think that the jurors

were very conscientious and understood that when you were

asking about family, friends, that they should bring up

anyone that they had a connection with. And the sense I got

was that the ones who said, no, I have no connection, do

not.

THE COURT: I just want to be certain. Any

questions you'd like me to ask any individual juror or

collectively?

MS. HEINZ: No.



THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan, any questions that you'd09:18

1

2

3

4

5

6

709:17

8

9

10

11

1209:17

1309:17

14

15

16

17

18

1909:18

20

21

2209:18

2309:18

2409:18

25


66



like the court to ask individually of any of the jurors? If

so, I'm happy to do that.



MS. CORRIGAN: None.

THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, the same offer.

Any questions the Court's forgotten to ask or inartfully

asked, I'm happy to reask again, or to ask for the first

time.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No, Your Honor. We're

satisfied with the voir dire the Court, uh, just performed.



THE COURT: My suggestion is that we give both

gentlemen a restroom break right now. That we not start in

to session. It's 9:15. Take the gentlemen down, give them

a restroom break. Why don't you take a break for just a

moment; then we'll reassemble the jury. But we'll actually

draw the alternate at the time that the jury's in court.

So Debbie will place six names into some kind of

container. And those will be Robert Roy, Frank Fraga,

Dillon Cassell, Scott Kirby, Nicholas Stalling, and Joe

Ortiz. It will be done right in their presence, if that's

acceptable to the government.

MS. HEINZ: Yes, Your Honor.09:19

1

2

309:18

409:18

509:18

609:18

7

8

9

1009:18

11

1209:18

1309:18

1409:18

15

16

17

18

19

2009:19

21

22

23

24

25


67




MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I like that, 'cause it lets

the other jurors know how we do the process, and they'll see

and pay attention.

THE COURT: I've gotta funny story. If you attend

a church in Africa, and you give a donation, the people are

so poor, and they worry about money, they actually take the

collection from the community, and they count it in front of

the community by different wards. And that's the way that

they check corruption. So if you're giving a bag of feed or

chicken, that gets counted, or small amounts of currency.

And it's just a wonderful thing.

So I agree with you. It's a very transparent way

to do it, and it lets them see the process so they're not

guessing if somebody was selected and for what reason. So

we'll do that in open court.

So about 15 minutes. Is that acceptable?

Anything else on behalf of the government?





THE COURT: Thank you. Why don't we take 1509:20

109:19

209:19

309:19

409:19

5

6

709:19

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1509:20

16

17

18

1909:20

2009:20

2109:20

2209:20

2309:20

2409:20

25


68



minutes. We'll be back in session.

(Recess held at 9:20 a.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Then, Counsel, unless

there's anything further, we're back on the record. All

counsel, the parties are present.

Can we summon the jury, Counsel?

MS. HEINZ: Just one very minor housekeeping.

With respect to the witness that is currently on the stand,

two AUSAs are going to be questioning him, one after the

other on two different matters.

THE COURT: Okay. Any objection, Counsel?


THE COURT: Counsel?


MS. HEINZ: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Would that witness like to retake the

stand.

And it's Agent Neil Shimke?

MR. NAM: Your Honor, it's Nicholas Vicencia.

THE COURT: Vicencia, I'm sorry. If you would

retake the stand. My apologies, of course.

NICHOLAS VICENCIA, CALLED BY THE GOVERNMENT

PREVIOUSLY SWORN, RESUMED THE STAND

THE COURT: Nicholas Vicencia or Viconzia?

THE WITNESS: Vicencia.09:36

1

209:20

309:35

4

5

609:35

709:35

8

9

10

1109:35

1209:35

1309:35

1409:35

1509:35

1609:35

17

1809:36

1909:36

2009:36

21

2212:09

23

2409:36

25


69



THE COURT: V-I-C-O-N-Z-I-A?

THE WITNESS: V-I-C-E-N-C-I-A.

THE COURT: E-N-C-I-A. Thank you. I'm sorry.

(To the clerk:) Okay. Deb, if you'd be kind

enough to bring the jury in.

(In the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: We're back in session. The jury's

present. The alternates are present. All counsel are

present. The parties are present. The witness is on the

witness stand, Agent Nicholas Vicencia.

One of the jurors has been excused, Juror No. 12,

outside your presence. So one of the six alternates will

now be chosen to take that juror's place and become a member

of the sitting jury.

SELECTION OF ALTERNATE TO BECOME JUROR NO. 12

THE COURT: So Debbie has put each of your

names -- there's six names inside a bowl.

(To the clerk:) And, Debbie, if you would be kind

enough to reach in -- they're folded up -- take out a name.

THE CLERK: Joe Ortiz.

THE COURT: Mr. Ortiz, if you'd be kind enough, if

you'd now be seated in Seat No. 12.

(Juror No. 12 is seated.)

THE COURT: Then, Counsel, is there anything

further concerning that process or procedure on behalf of

109:36

209:36

309:36

409:36

5

609:37

709:38

8

9

10

1109:38

12

13

14

1509:38

1609:38

17

1809:38

19

2009:38

2109:38

22

2309:38

2409:38

25


70



the government?

MS. HEINZ: No, Your Honor. Thank you.





THE COURT: Then if you would like to continue

your direct examination of Agent Vicencia.

MR. NAM: Thank you, Your Honor.

WITNESS TESTIMONY RESUMED

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, before returning to the

Wells Fargo Bank documents that we were looking at on Friday

when we broke, I'd like to return to the disc placed at

Government's Exhibit Folder 703.

MR. NAM: Would 703 and exhibit also 760 be placed

before Special Agent Vicencia?

THE COURT: 703 and 760?

MR. NAM: Yes, Your Honor.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Do you recall testifying that you listened to all the

recordings that are part of this disc in exhibit folder 703?

A. Yes.09:40

1

209:38

309:38

409:38

509:39

609:39

709:39

8

909:39

1009:39

1109:39

1209:39

1309:39

14

15

16

1709:39

18

1909:39

2009:39

2109:39

2209:39

2309:39

24

25


71



Q. And how do you know that you listened to all the

recordings therein?

A. I reviewed the recordings one by one and to ensure that

the proper exhibit number was marked on the disc; and after

I listened to the complete disc, I initialed and dated it

when I completed listening to all the telephone calls.

Q. In addition to what has already been received into

evidence on Friday, does the disc contain audio recordings

that have been marked as Government Exhibits 707, 728, and

729?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you compared these audio recordings on, uh, this

disc to audio recordings stored in an FBI data base?

A. Yes.

Q. Are the recordings the same?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Did you initial the disc after comparing those three

audios as well on this disc with, uh -- with other

recordings stored in an FBI database?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. The recordings that we've been talking about, are they

all conversations that were recorded from calls made from a

cellphone associated with Defendant Elhuzayel?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall the number of that cellphone?09:41

109:40

2

309:40

4

5

6

709:40

8

9

10

1109:40

1209:40

13

1409:40

1509:40

1609:40

1709:40

18

19

2009:41

2109:41

22

23

2409:41

25


72



A. (714) 270-3532.

Q. How do you know that this number, (714) 270-3532, is

associated with Defendant Elhuzayel?

A. I reviewed several different records that were

associated with the telephone to include a gmail account --

I'm sorry, excuse me -- an iCloud account, Nader828@iCloud,

subscriber records.

Q. I'd like to show you right now what has been admitted

as Government Exhibit 502.

THE COURT: 502?

MR. NAM: (No response.)

(Exhibit displayed.)

MR. NAM: If you could zoom into the area where

the contact information, the SMS information can be seen.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Is this a subscriber record to the iCloud account that

you've just talked about?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And what is the phone number that is associated with

this iCloud account?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection. Your Honor, the

document speaks for itself.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: (714) 270-3532.09:42

109:41

209:41

3

409:41

5

6

7

809:41

9

1009:42

1109:42

1209:42

1309:42

14

1509:42

1609:42

1709:42

18

1909:42

2009:42

21

2209:42

23

2409:42

25


73



BY MR. NAM:

Q. And are you aware of any admission provided by

Defendant Elhuzayel as to his connection with this account?

A. Yes. I reviewed an audio-video recording of his

post-arrest statement where he told the agents that it was

his e-mail account.

Q. Are there any other -- is there any -- are there any

other records that you're aware of that further connect this

number, (714) 270-3532, with Defendant Elhuzayel?

A. Yes. There was also two gmail accounts that were

associated with 'em that the subscriber records also had

that phone number.

Q. Are you also aware of any Facebook account profile that

connects this number with the defendant?

A. Yes. There was also a Facebook page associated with

the defendant that the subscriber page had that phone number

as well.

Q. Like to show you Exhibit 401, which has been admitted

into evidence already.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Does Exhibit 401 show a connection between the phone

number that we've been talking about and the defendant?

A. Yes. This is subscriber information from -- provided

by Facebook that has the defendant's name, Nader Elhuzayel,

109:42

209:42

3

409:42

5

6

709:43

8

9

1009:43

11

12

1309:43

14

1509:43

16

17

1809:43

19

2009:43

2109:43

2209:43

23

2409:44

25


74



the iCloud account that I just mentioned, and also his

cellular telephone (714) 270-3532.

Q. I'd like to now turn toward how you were able to make

identifications of voices.

When you listened to the audio recordings on the disc

in Government Exhibit -- the 703 folder -- did you recognize

some of the voices on these recordings?

A. Yes.

Q. Whose voices did you recognize?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor. Lack

of foundation.

THE COURT: Well, the issue is to some -- when you

listen to the audio recordings on the disc in

Government 703, the question and lack of foundation is as to

which recordings within 703 he listened to. I thought there

were numerous recordings in 703.

MR. NAM: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Which ones?

MR. NAM: All of the recordings therein,

Your Honor. I'm seeking to lay the foundation as to how the

witness was able to make voice identifications.

THE COURT: But in the first recording, we just

hear -- that we played Friday, just a "yeah," or one word.

Later on, there may be voluminous conversations where the

agent can form the opinion that that's the same voice.

1

2

309:44

4

509:44

6

7

809:44

909:44

1009:44

11

1209:44

13

14

15

16

1709:45

1809:45

1909:45

20

21

2209:45

23

24

25


75



There may be other conversations where we hear very little.

So I'm gonna sustain the objection.

What recordings are -- is he relying on? It

certainly can't be 705.

MR. NAM: Uh, no, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So which ones?

MR. NAM: If I may -- if I may make a very brief

proffer?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. NAM: The witness would be able to testify as

to prior recordings of Defendant Elhuzayel's voice, that he

heard both and reviewed several times, as well as

contemporaneous in person.

THE COURT: Are these in 703?

MR. NAM: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: 'Cause this question's directed

towards 703.

MR. NAM: The question was if whether he was --

THE COURT: But why don't you just reask the

question. I may be confused, so, please.

MR. NAM: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, did you recognize some of the

voices on these recordings contained in the disc 703?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor.09:46

1

209:45

309:45

4

509:46

609:46

709:46

8

909:46

1009:46

11

12

13

1409:46

1509:46

1609:46

17

1809:46

1909:46

20

2109:46

2209:46

2309:46

24

25


76



Foundation.

THE COURT: Yeah, I thought that was the same

question.

I thought you were comparing 703.

I'm going to sustain the objection.

In other words, which discs is he relying on?

That's all I want to know.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, I will make a specific,

uh --

THE COURT: All I'm asking -- it's very simple.

Did he rely -- is there enough conversation on 710, for

instance? Is there enough conversation on 723? Just a

sweeping question, did he listen to 703 and, therefore, he

can make an evaluation. I think the defense is entitled to

know what discs had a sufficient conversation so he could

listen to that and say with clarity, you know, I listened to

706, 717, 723, 725, and those had sufficient conversation.

Because 705 does not.

MR. NAM: Very well, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent --


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, have you spoken directly with09:47

1

209:46

3

409:47

509:47

609:47

7

809:47

9

1009:47

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1909:47

2009:47

2109:47

2209:47

2309:47

2409:47

25


77



Defendant Elhuzayel?

A. No, not directly.

Q. Have you heard him speak in your presence?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you first hear Defendant Elhuzayel speak?

A. On May 21st, 2015.

Q. Where was he?

A. At the Los Angeles International Airport.

Q. And how close were you to Defendant Elhuzayel when he

was speaking?

A. At times, I was 10 to 15 feet, and at other times, I

was approximately 1 to 2 feet away from him.

Q. What was Defendant Elhuzayel doing when, uh, he was

speaking?

A. When I first heard him speak was with Turkish Airline

employees, and then I also heard him speak to another

passenger in line.

Q. Were you able to see his face when he was speaking?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you able to understand him clearly when he was

speaking?

A. Yes.

Q. What other -- what other times did you hear him speak

directly?

A. I heard him speak with TSA agents and also FBI agents09:48

1

209:47

309:47

409:48

509:48

609:48

709:48

809:48

909:48

10

1109:48

12

1309:48

14

1509:48

16

17

1809:48

1909:48

2009:48

21

2209:48

2309:48

24

25


78



at LAX.

Q. How close were you when he was speaking?

A. At times, I was 10 to 15 feet away, and at other times,

I was approximately a foot away from him.

Q. Were you able to see his face clearly?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you able to hear his voice clearly?

A. Yes.

Q. And what other times did you hear him speak?

A. I've heard him speak on the telephone during

post-arrest telephone calls he made.

Q. Who was he speaking with?

A. He was speaking with members of his family.

Q. Did you review the recording that he just spoke of?

THE COURT: 703?

MR. NAM: No, Your Honor. A different -- a

different recording, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The recording just spoke of. Okay.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection. Vague as to which

recording.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. The recording -- the recording that he just spoke of

with -- that recorded the conversation between the defendant

and his family members, did you, uh -- did you review such a

1

209:48

309:49

4

509:49

609:49

709:49

809:49

909:49

1009:49

11

1209:49

1309:49

1409:49

1509:49

1609:49

17

1809:49

1909:49

20

2109:49

2209:49

2309:49

24

25


79



recording?

A. Yes.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Asked and answered.


THE WITNESS: I reviewed three separate telephone

calls. One was on May 25th, 2015, uh, and I believe the

other two was on June 2nd, and June 4, 2015. Three separate

telephone calls.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Did you also review the defendant's post-arrest

interview recording, the interview that occurred at LAX --

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Leading.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. -- May 22nd, 2015?

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that

question.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. How many times have you reviewed that recording?

A. I reviewed the entire recording three times. And I've

reviewed portions of it three to five times.

Q. Did you also hear portions of that interview live?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where were you when that interview was taking place?

A. Initially, before the defendant walked into the room,09:51

1

209:50

309:50

409:50

509:50

6

7

8

909:50

1009:50

11

1209:50

1309:50

1409:50

1509:50

16

1709:50

1809:50

1909:50

2009:50

21

2209:50

2309:51

2409:51

25


80



the interview room, with two other FBI agents, I was at the

threshold of the doorway, um, when they greeted each other.

And the door was eventually closed. I was listening on the

other side of the door for about 15 to 20 minutes.

Q. Were you are able to hear the defendant clearly?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And were you able to distinguish his voice with the

voices of others in the room with the defendant?

A. Yes.

Q. How were you able to make that distinction?

A. 'Cause I heard all three people speak before.

THE COURT: All right. Then, counsel, I believe

I'm satisfied, but in an abundance of caution, if you would

like to take the witness on voir dire, either counsel are

welcome to.

MS. CORRIGAN: Not from me, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, if you would have

a seat for just a moment before we proceed with the

recordings.

MR. NAM: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Let's make sure there's an adequate

foundation. If Counsel has a concern, I'd like him to ask

questions.

VOIR DIRE BY MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Thank you, Your Honor.09:52

1

2

3

4

509:51

609:51

709:51

8

909:51

1009:51

1109:51

1209:51

13

14

15

1609:51

1709:52

18

19

2009:52

2109:52

22

23

2409:52

25


81



BY MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU:

Q. You were not involved in the wire taps in this case; is

that right?

A. I don't understand.

MR. NAM: Objection, Your Honor. Vague and

ambiguous.

THE COURT: Do you understand the question?

THE WITNESS: I don't understand what he means by

"involved."



Q. You were part of the team that was listening in the

conversations that were recorded either by phone or in the

car or any other means; is that right?

A. I did listen to 'em.

Q. At the time that they were captured?

A. Live? No.

Q. Okay. That's what I was referring to.

A. Okay.

Q. You weren't part of the team that was involved in

the -- or the listening in on the conversations; right?

A. Not live, no.

Q. Not live. Okay. So somebody told you that those

conversations were the ones that they said were captured of

Nader; right?

109:52

209:52

3

409:52

509:52

6

709:52

809:52

9

1009:52

1109:52

1209:52

13

14

1509:52

1609:52

1709:52

1809:52

1909:52

2009:52

21

2209:53

2309:53

24

25


82



A. No. I independently listened to 'em at a later date.

Q. Okay. But someone gave them to you and said they were

conversations involving Nader?

A. No. I went into the system myself and listened to 'em.

Q. Okay. And they were labeled as conversations of Nader?

A. No, they were not. They were a session number or a --

they didn't have summaries at the time when I first reviewed

them.

Q. And so you were not involved in the interview of my

client at LAX; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And since LAX, you've never had a personal one-on-one

interview with my client; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Prior to LAX, you never had a conversation directly

with my client other than overhearing him in the line; is

that right?

A. Overhearing him in the line and also when he was

speaking with an FBI agent prior to going into the interview

room.

Q. Okay. So you were eavesdropping on these

conversations; you weren't having the conversations with my

client; is that correct?

A. Correct. I wouldn't use the word "eavesdrop" but...

Q. Overhearing someone else's conversation, how else do we09:54

109:53

209:53

3

409:53

509:53

609:53

7

8

909:53

10

1109:53

1209:53

13

1409:54

1509:54

16

17

1809:54

19

20

2109:54

22

23

2409:54

25


83



define it?

MR. NAM: Objection. Argumentative.



Q. Okay. I withdraw the word "eavesdropping."

You were standing in the vicinity of two other people

having a conversation; is that fair?

A. Three people, yes.

Q. Okay. For instance, at the ticket agency, they were

checking him into his flight, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And he was checking his bags into the flight, correct?

A. Initially, he checked two of his bags in.

Q. So that's a yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And he checked the bags through to Tel Aviv.

You heard that, correct?

MR. NAM: Objection. Beyond the scope. This is

not regarding voice identification, Your Honor.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Trying to get a background of

what he actually heard, Your Honor, that's all.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the

question.

THE WITNESS: He initially -- I'm sorry. Can you

repeat the question?

1

209:54

309:54

409:54

509:54

609:54

7

809:54

909:54

10

1109:54

1209:54

1309:55

1409:55

1509:55

1609:55

17

1809:55

19

2009:55

21

2209:55

23

2409:55

25


84




Q. At the ticket counter, when he was checking his bags

in, you heard him say, "I'm checking the bags through to

Tel Aviv"; correct?

A. I didn't hear him specifically say that.

Q. So you didn't hear what they said?

A. I heard portions of what he said.

Q. Okay. But when you -- when the prosecution asked you,

they said, "you clearly heard him." So that's not true, is

it? You didn't clearly hear him. You didn't hear what he

said.

MR. NAM: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Well, it depends on the point in time.

His initial testimony was that he heard a conversation with

Turkish Airline employees, TSA, FBI agents at LAX. So are

you referring to the portion with the baggage claim people

at Turkish Airlines?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: At the ticket -- when he was

checking in, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let's be clear about the time, because

that's an extended conversation, apparently, and it involves

two different incidences. One was his testimony that he

talked to the agent; another one was the baggage being

passed through, apparently. So which one?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Okay.09:56

109:55

209:55

3

4

509:55

609:55

709:55

809:55

9

10

11

1209:55

1309:55

14

15

16

17

1809:56

19

2009:56

21

22

23

24

25


85




Q. At the point where he was checking in --

A. Yes.

Q. -- that's at the ticket agency -- well, they call it

the ticket agent counter; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Where you give them your information about your ticket;

right?

A. Correct.

Q. So you say you heard that conversation clearly?

A. I heard portions of that conversation.

Q. Okay. So that conversation you didn't hear clearly;

you didn't hear all of it; correct?

A. Correct. When I saw him speaking and what draw -- drew

me to get closer was, when he was waiting, I saw him speak

with another person in line, so I got closer to him to hear

it clearly.

Q. Let's talk about the person in line. That was a

female, wasn't it?

A. No, it was a male.

Q. It was a male?

A. Yes.

Q. You're certain about that?

A. Yes. I spoke to that person later.

Q. Okay. And that -- and what part of the conversation09:57

109:56

209:56

309:56

409:56

5

609:56

709:56

8

909:56

1009:56

1109:56

1209:56

13

1409:56

15

16

17

1809:57

19

2009:57

2109:57

2209:57

2309:57

2409:57

25


86



did you hear? Not what he told you the conversation was.

What part of the conversation did you hear with that

individual?

MR. NAM: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor.


THE WITNESS: The defendant was, uh, waiting for

some --

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor.

Nonresponsive.


Q. What part of the conversation --

THE COURT: No, no. Just a moment. That's

confusing. Counsel initially objected because he thought

you were getting into content. You apparently are not.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

THE COURT: But "what part of the conversation," I

don't know how that's answerable.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: The government has

represented --

THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. Your question,

please.


Q. What did my client say to the passenger in line?

MR. NAM: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.09:57

1

2

3

409:57

509:57

609:57

7

809:57

9

1009:57

1109:57

1209:57

13

14

1509:57

1609:57

17

1809:57

19

2009:57

21

2209:57

2309:57

2409:57

25


87



THE WITNESS: I don't remember the specific words.

I remember hearing him clearly. It was -- to paraphrase, he

was --


Q. No, no. I didn't ask you to paraphrase. Excuse me for

interrupting.

A. Okay.

Q. You either remember or you don't, and you either heard

it clearly or you didn't?

A. I heard it clearly, but I don't remember specifically

what he said. I did not record it.

Q. It was about getting married, wasn't it? Does that

refresh your recollection?

MR. NAM: Objection. Counsel's testifying.


THE WITNESS: The portion I heard, he was

complaining how long it was taking to get his ticket.


Q. He also mentioned that he was going there to get

married; correct? Or do you not remember that?

MR. NAM: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled. It's argumentative, so

rephrase the question.


Q. Did you or did you not hear him tell the passenger in09:58

109:57

2

3

409:58

509:58

6

709:58

809:58

9

1009:58

11

1209:58

13

1409:58

1509:58

1609:58

17

1809:58

1909:58

20

2109:58

2209:58

23

2409:58

25


88



line that he was going there to get married?

A. I did not hear that part of the conversation, no.

Q. When you interviewed the passenger later, did he not

say that that's what he said?

MR. NAM: Objection. Hearsay.



Q. Did you read your report regarding your interview with

the individual?

A. I didn't conduct the interview. I was present for

portions of that interview with another agent from LAX.

Q. I'm sorry. Then I misunderstood your prior testimony.

You said you interviewed the passenger in line that he spoke

with. Did you or did you not interview him?

A. Yes, I participated in the interview.

Q. Meaning you stand there and listen --

(Court reporter requests clarification for the

record.)


Q. I'm sorry. You're telling us now that you stood there

and you listened to somebody else interview him?

A. Correct. I asked one or two questions, I think.

Q. Okay. And you reviewed the report?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Wait a minute. There was a report written of an09:59

1

209:58

309:58

4

509:58

609:58

709:58

809:58

9

1009:59

11

1209:59

13

14

1509:59

1609:59

1709:59

18

1909:59

2009:59

21

2209:59

2309:59

2409:59

25


89



interview in which you participated at least partly --

partially, and you didn't bother to review that report for

accuracy?

MR. NAM: Objection. Relevance.


THE WITNESS: I did not review that report, no.


Q. Okay. Other than these conversations that you've now

testified, the only other time that you actually heard my

client speak was in conversations with his family on the

phone and the conversation with the FBI in the backroom at

LAX; is that right?

A. No.

Q. You've heard him speak other times?

A. Yes.

Q. Other than what you've testified here today?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Based on all of that information, that's the

foundation for why you believe that the statements that the

people -- or the government wants to play in this court, you

believe that that's my client; is that right?

A. There's other facts that lead me to believe that it's

also him.

Q. Okay. How many brothers does he have?

A. Three.10:00

1

2

3

409:59

509:59

609:59

709:59

809:59

9

10

11

12

1310:00

1410:00

1510:00

1610:00

1710:00

1810:00

19

20

21

2210:00

23

2410:00

25


90



Q. How many cousins?

A. I don't know.

Q. How many other family members?

A. I believe --

Q. Well, let's say three levels of sanguinity.

A. I'm only aware of his immediate family. I don't know

any other family members.

Q. So you've never compared any of these recording to

their voices; is that correct?

A. Some of 'em I have.

Q. How many times have you spoken to the other members of

his family?

A. I've spoken to his mother on one occasion, and I've

spoken to one of his other brothers on three separate

occasions.

Q. Okay. Are you an expert in voice recognition?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Are you aware of any voice recognition software or any

analysis that's been done with any of these recordings to

make a determination that they are, in fact, Nader and have

excluded out any other possible member of his family who

mighta been using his phone?

A. No, I'm not aware of that.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No further questions.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I'm satisfied10:01

110:00

210:00

310:00

410:00

510:00

610:00

7

810:01

9

1010:01

1110:01

12

1310:01

14

15

1610:01

1710:01

1810:01

19

20

21

22

2310:01

2410:01

25


91



with the foundation. In an abundance of caution, you may

proceed. In an abundance of caution, though, I'll take it

subject to a motion to strike. Some of these phone calls

may be helpful to both sides, but it's certainly helpful to

the jury in determining if this is the speaker, as you go

through those phone calls.

So, Counsel.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia --

MR. NAM: Your Honor, am I understanding the

Court's ruling correctly that I may proceed?

THE COURT: You may.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, based on your experience of

hearing the defendant, Defendant Elhuzayel, and reviewing

recordings of Defendant Elhuzayel, did you recognize a voice

in the audio recordings that are contained in the disc 703

folder, the voice that you knew to be Defendant Elhuzayel?

A. Yes.

Q. In any of the calls on the disc at Exhibit 703 that you

listened to, did Defendant Elhuzayel identify himself by his

name?

A. Yes. On some of the phone calls, he did.

Q. And did these calls include recorded conversations with10:03

1

2

3

4

5

6

710:02

810:02

910:02

1010:02

11

1210:02

1310:02

1410:02

1510:02

16

17

18

19

2010:03

2110:03

22

23

2410:03

25


92



bank employees?

A. Yes.

Q. I'd like to turn to other voices that can be heard on

this disc. Have you spoken directly with Husam Elhuzayel?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Who is Husam Elhuzayel?

A. Husam -- he also goes by the name Sam Elhuzayel -- is

Defendant Nader Elhuzayel's brother.

Q. When did you first speak with him?

A. The first time I've spoken to him was on May 21st,

2015.

Q. Where'd this conversation -- where did this

conversation take place?

A. It took place at his residence in Anaheim, California.

Q. And how long did this conversation last?

A. Approximately two hours.

Q. And how close were you to Husam Elhuzayel when you

spoke with him for approximately two hours?

A. One to 2 feet.

Q. Was a recording made of this interview?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you listened to the interview recording again?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Did you speak with him again this past week outside the

courtroom?

1

210:03

310:03

4

510:03

610:03

710:03

8

910:03

1010:03

11

1210:03

13

1410:03

1510:04

1610:04

1710:04

18

1910:04

2010:04

2110:04

2210:04

2310:04

2410:04

25


93



A. Yes, I did.

Q. How long was the conversation?

A. Thirty seconds to a minute. I asked him how his child

was.

Q. Was Husam Elhuzayel's voice as you remembered it this

past week?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. When you listened to recordings of calls on the disc in

Exhibit 703, did you recognize a voice as the same voice you

knew to be the voice of Husam Elhuzayel?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the voice you recognized as Husam's referred to as

Husam or Sam in these recordings?

A. Yes.

Q. Finally, turning to one other voice, have you spoken

directly with Falak Elhuzayel?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Who is Falak Elhuzayel?

A. She's Defendant Nader Elhuzayel's mother.

Q. When did you first speak with Falak Elhuzayel?

A. The first I ever spoke to her was in June 2015.

Q. Where did this conversation take place?

A. Outside of her residence in Anaheim, California.

Q. How long did this conversation last?

A. Approximately 20 minutes.10:05

110:04

210:04

310:04

4

510:04

6

710:04

810:04

9

10

1110:05

1210:05

13

1410:05

1510:05

16

1710:05

1810:05

1910:05

2010:05

2110:05

2210:05

2310:05

2410:05

25


94



Q. How close were you to Falak Elhuzayel when you spoke

with her for about 20 minutes?

A. Approximately 2 to 3 feet. We were right in front of

each other.

Q. Have you listened to any audio recordings of

Falak Elhuzayel's voice?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What have you listened to?

A. I listened to two post-arrest telephone calls from the

defendant to his mother.

Q. And how long were these calls?

A. One was a little over 3 minutes, and the second one was

approximately 29 minutes, uh, but his mother, Falak, and

also his father, Salem, were handing the phone back and

forth throughout the conversations.

Q. When you listened to the audio, was Falak Elhuzayel's

voice clear?

A. Yes.

Q. When you listened to the audios of calls recorded on

the disc at Exhibit 703, did you recognize a voice as the

voice you knew to be Falak Elhuzayel's?

A. Yes.

Q. In some of the calls, does a person speaking with that

same voice say her name is Falak Elhuzayel?

A. Yes, they do. (Verbatim.)10:07

110:05

2

310:05

4

510:05

6

710:06

810:06

910:06

10

1110:06

1210:06

13

14

15

1610:06

17

1810:07

1910:07

20

21

2210:07

2310:07

24

25


95



Q. Based on your familiarity with the voices of Nader,

Husam, and Falak Elhuzayel and listening to recorded

telephone calls in which the three names are identified by

name, do you recognize the voices of Defendant Nader

Elhuzayel, Husam Elhuzayel, and/or Falak Elhuzayel in the

telephone calls on the disc in the folder for Government

Exhibit 703 and specifically those marked as 707, 728, and

729?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Renew our objection on

foundation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And, Counsel, would you like to voir

dire on Falak and Husam.


THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. In addition, um, have you reviewed transcripts of all

the recordings of telephone calls that are on the disc in

the folder for Government Exhibit 703?

A. Yes.

Q. Are the voice identifications in the transcripts

correct?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor

foundation. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.10:08

110:07

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910:08

10

1110:08

12

1310:08

1410:08

1510:08

1610:08

1710:08

18

19

2010:08

2110:08

22

2310:08

24

25


96



THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, at this time the government

moves to -- uh, moves 707, 707-A.

THE COURT: Let's take those one by one as you

play them. I'd like to -- it's a continuing objection.

I've taken it subject to a motion to strike. So I think you

made 705 and 705-A. So I'm -- are you -- which is the next

you want to play?

MR. NAM: The first one we would play is 707.

THE COURT: Then you may play 707 at this time.

MR. NAM: Before we play 707, Your Honor, I'd like

to ask a question to the witness.

I'd like to ask Special Agent Vicencia -- I'd like

to ask you to refer Exhibit 760, which should be before you.

It has been, uh, admitted subject to showing of relevance in

this case.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Exhibit 707 -- looking at Exhibit 760, when was

Exhibit 707, a call, made?

A. It was made on April 30th, 2015, at 12:57 p.m.

MR. NAM: I will now play Exhibit 707.

(Audio played.)

(Transcript displayed.)

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, there was a reference to the10:17

110:08

210:08

3

410:08

5

6

7

8

910:09

1010:09

1110:09

12

1310:09

14

15

16

1710:09

1810:09

19

2010:09

2110:10

2210:13

2310:13

2410:17

25


97



address 9852 Katella. Is that an address you recognize?

A. Yes.

Q. Whose address is it?

A. It's a previous address of Defendant Nader Elhuzayel.

Q. During the conversation we just heard, who is the

person who says, "This is Nader"?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor.

Foundation.

THE COURT: You can answer that question.

Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Defendant Nader Elhuzayel.

MR. NAM: I'd like to ask that Exhibit 903,

927-A --

THE COURT: 903 and?

MR. NAM: 927-A, Your Honor.

THE COURT: 927-A.

MR. NAM: -- be placed before the witness.


MR. NAM: 903 has been received into evidence

already, Your Honor.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, I'd like to direct your

attention to page 1 of 9 -- Exhibit 903.

A. Yes, I have it.

Q. Chase Bank statement for account number ending with10:18

1

210:17

310:17

410:17

510:17

6

710:17

8

910:17

10

1110:17

1210:17

13

1410:17

1510:17

1610:17

1710:18

1810:18

1910:18

20

2110:18

2210:18

23

2410:18

25


98



6763.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. On April 20th, is there a -- I'm sorry. On April 30th,

the line for April 30th, is there a deposit in the amount of

$356?

A. Yes.

Q. It was a cash or a check deposit?

A. It was a check deposit.

Q. And where was the deposit made?

A. It was at the Chase Banking Center located at 910 South

Brookhurst Street in Anaheim, California, with an ATM card

ending in 2333 at an ATM.

Q. I'll direct your attention to Exhibit 927-A, which has

been admitted already. Is this a check in the amount of

$356 -- a copy of a check?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Whose check is it?

A. It's from a restaurant called "Noodle 21," and it's

made payable -- I can't read the first word, but it says

"Cali Food" after it for $356.

Q. On this exhibit, do you see when the deposit of this

check, this Noodle 21, check was posted to Defendant

Elhuzayel's account?

A. It was posted on April 30th, 2015.10:19

1

210:18

310:18

410:18

5

6

710:18

810:18

910:18

1010:18

1110:18

12

13

1410:19

15

16

1710:19

1810:19

1910:19

20

21

2210:19

23

24

25


99



Q. Now, in your review of the phone calls on the disc in

Exhibit 703 folder, did you find phone calls in which

Defendant Elhuzayel and his family members Husam and Falak

Elhuzayel discussed check deposits?

A. Yes.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to

play Exhibit 706.

THE COURT: You may play 706.

(Audio played.)


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, do you recall the reference to

a "check being a good one" here?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your understanding of this reference a "check

being a good one"?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor. Calls

for speculation.


THE WITNESS: My understanding is that it refers

to if a check still has enough funds to be cashed.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. I'd like to now proceed to May 1st, in Exhibit 903,

returning to page 1, the Chase Bank statement for account

ending with 6763. Do you see a deposit in the amount of

110:20

2

3

4

510:20

610:20

7

810:20

910:13

1010:13

1110:21

1210:21

13

1410:21

1510:21

16

1710:21

18

1910:21

2010:21

21

2210:21

2310:21

24

25


100



$750?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. It was a cash or a check deposit?

A. It was a check deposit.

Q. Where was the deposit made?

A. Again, at the Chase banking center located at 910 South

Brookhurst Street in Anaheim, California, ending in card

No. 2333 at an ATM.

Q. I direct your attention now to Exhibit 929-A, if the

folder can be placed before the witness. Exhibit 929-A has

been admitted already.

MR. NAM: Can we project Exhibit 929?


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Is this a copy of a check in the amount of $750?

A. Yes, it is.


A. The check is from Saul Salinas-Garcia, DBA, doing

business as, Salinas Landsca- -- it's cut off -- and it's

made payable to Nader Elhuzayel with a date of April 30th,

2015, for $750. And at the bottom left, it says it's for a

flat screen -- flat screen television.

Q. What do you understanding the last word in the name row

to mean, where it ends with "landsca"?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor. Calls10:23

1

210:22

310:22

410:22

510:22

610:22

7

8

910:22

10

11

1210:22

1310:22

1410:23

1510:23

1610:23

1710:23

1810:23

19

20

21

22

2310:23

24

25


101



for speculation.

THE COURT: Would you move up the realtime for

just one moment?

Overruled. You can answer that question.

THE WITNESS: Landscape or landscaping.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. When was this check posted?

A. It was posted on May 1st, 2015.

Q. Returning again to Exhibit 903, page 1, for the 6763

account. On May 1, the same day as the deposit of Mr. Saul

Salinas-Garcia's check, was there also a withdrawal made?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the location of the withdrawal?

A. The same banking center, at 910 South Brookhurst Street

in Anaheim, California, at an ATM.

Q. What was the amount of the withdrawal?

A. $300.

Q. What's the significance of the withdrawal amount, if

any?


for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained in its present form.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, do you know the significance of

this amount?

1

210:23

3

410:23

510:23

610:24

710:24

810:24

910:24

10

11

1210:24

1310:24

1410:24

15

1610:24

1710:24

1810:24

19

2010:24

21

2210:24

2310:24

2410:24

25


102



THE COURT: Still sustained, Counsel.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. I'm now showing you what has been marked as

Government's Exhibit 928, which has been received into

evidence.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 928?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it -- what is, um --

MR. NAM: Your Honor, I apologize. This may not

have been received into evidence. I apologize for

misspeaking.

THE COURT: 928. All right.

(Exhibit displays are removed.)

MR. NAM: I will lay the foundation, Your Honor.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Now, do you recognize Exhibit 928?

A. Yes.

Q. What is Exhibit 928?

A. It's an ATM security photograph from Chase.

Q. Was this part of the record you received from Chase

Bank for Defendant Elhuzayel's account ending with 6763

pursuant to a lawful court process?

A. Yes.10:26

110:24

210:25

310:25

4

5

610:25

710:25

810:25

910:25

1010:25

1110:25

12

13

1410:25

1510:25

1610:25

1710:25

1810:25

1910:25

2010:25

2110:25

2210:25

23

24

25


103



MR. NAM: At this time, the government moves to

admit Exhibit 928, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No objection, Your Honor.

MS. CORRIGAN: (No response.)

THE COURT: Received.

(Exhibit No. 928 received in evidence.)

BY MR. NAM:

Q. I'm now showing you Exhibit 928.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Who is depicted on this photo?

A. Husam Elhuzayel, Defendant Nader Elhuzayel's brother.

Q. Does this include the location of the ATM where this

photo was taken?

A. Yes. The address of the ATM is 910 South Brookhurst

Street.

Q. And what is the date and time stamp on this photo?

A. May 1st, 2015, at 6:33 p.m.

Q. In your review of the calls made from the 3532 phone

number, associated with Defendant Elhuzayel, did you see a

call made to Chase Bank regarding this account, 6763, on

May 1st prior to this time -- uh, prior to the time this ATM

photo was taken?

A. Yes.10:27

110:26

2

310:26

410:26

510:26

610:26

710:26

810:26

910:26

1010:26

1110:26

1210:26

1310:26

1410:26

15

1610:26

17

1810:26

1910:26

2010:26

21

22

23

24

25


104



Q. Which exhibit is it?

A. 708.

Q. And what was the purpose of the calls as recorded in

Exhibit 708?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection. Foundation,

Your Honor. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled on foundation.

But isn't the tape going to be self-explanatory,

Counsel?

MR. NAM: I was not intending on playing it, just

for the sake of economy of time, but have the witness

describe very briefly what's -- what's contained in the

recording, Your Honor. But if the Court would prefer, we

can play it.

THE COURT: Counsel?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Yes, we'll play it,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You may play it.


(Audio played.)


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Among the calls you reviewed on the disc at Exhibit

Folder 703, did you notice any pattern as to when the

available balances are checked by the 3532 phone number?

110:27

210:27

310:27

4

510:27

6

710:27

810:27

9

1010:27

11

12

13

14

1510:27

1610:27

17

1810:28

1910:28

2010:13

2110:13

2210:29

2310:29

24

25


105



A. Yes.

Q. And what was that pattern?

A. The day after a deposit was made and before a

withdrawal was made the next -- the following day.

Q. I'm now proceeding to May 2nd, back to Exhibit 903,

page 1.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. On May 2nd, one day after the deposit of Mr. Saul

Salinas' check that you testified about just now, were there

any withdrawals made from this account?

A. I'm sorry. What was the date?

Q. May 2nd.

A. Yes. There were two withdrawals.

Q. And when were they posted?

A. Excuse me, I'm sorry. There's three withdrawals.

Q. And when were they -- when were the May 2nd withdrawals

posted to this account?

A. On May 4th, 2015.

Q. Do you know why bank transactions are -- do you know

why bank transactions made on one day are posted on the next

business day?

A. My understanding is the bank computer system usually

takes approximately one business day to catch up to the

previous day's transactions.

110:29

210:29

310:29

4

510:30

6

710:30

810:30

910:30

10

11

1210:30

1310:30

1410:30

1510:30

1610:30

1710:30

18

1910:30

2010:31

21

22

2310:31

24

25


106



Q. In your review of the calls made from the 3532 number,

do you receive a call that is made on May 2nd?

A. Yes.

Q. How many calls?

A. There's one call.

Q. What time was -- was the call made?

A. 9:31 a.m.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, at this time the government

would like to play Exhibit 710.


(Audio played.)


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Does Exhibit 903 indicate whether Mr. Saul Salinas'

check written for $750 was returned?

A. Yes.

Q. When did that happen?

A. It returned on -- it was posted on the statement on

May 4th, but it was returned on 5/1, May 1st.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Did he say it was posted on

May 4th, and returned on May 1st, Your Honor?

THE COURT: That's what I heard also.

THE WITNESS: Do you want me to clarify?

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Would you please clarify your answer?10:34

110:31

2

310:31

410:31

510:31

610:31

710:32

810:32

9

1010:32

1110:13

1210:13

1310:33

1410:33

15

1610:33

1710:33

1810:33

19

2010:33

21

2210:33

2310:34

2410:34

25


107



A. Yes. The check was returned on the account so,

therefore, the funds were withdrawn on May 1st, but it

didn't post to the statement until May 4th.

THE COURT: I see.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. On Friday, Special Agent Vicencia, you were looking at

Wells Fargo checking account statement and we'd like to

return there now to Exhibit 902.

MR. NAM: And could exhibits 902, 930, 931, 932

and 934 be placed before the witness. And if you could

project Exhibit 902, page 3, which has been received into

evidence already.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Turning to the date of May 4th.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you see an entry regarding a deposited check

returned on May 4th?

A. Yes.

Q. Which check was it?

A. It was in the amount of $570.

Q. Earlier in this bank statement, on a previous page, do

you see a check in the amount of $570 that was deposited to

this account?

A. Yes. A few days earlier on May 29th.10:35

110:34

2

3

410:34

510:34

610:34

7

8

910:34

10

11

12

1310:34

1410:35

1510:35

1610:35

1710:35

18

1910:35

2010:35

2110:35

2210:35

23

24

25


108



Q. I'm now showing you Exhibit 924-A.

THE COURT: Did you say May 29th?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. If I did, I misspoke.

April 29th.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: What exhibit, Counsel?

MR. NAM: 924-A.

924-A, Your Honor, has been received into evidence

through a prior witness, and I'm now showing you

Exhibit 924-A.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Is this the check deposited on April 29th and returned

on May 4th?

A. Yes.


A. It's from Tran Truong Brothers, Inc., dba World Foods

Supermarket. And it's paid to Cali Food Co for the amount

of $570.

Q. Now, returning to page 3 of the bank statement at

Exhibit 902 and returning to specifically May 4th, is there

a withdrawal in the amount of $20?

A. Yes.

Q. Where was the withdrawal made?

A. It was at the Wells Fargo banking center located at

2350 West Lincoln Avenue in Anaheim, California, with

110:36

210:36

310:36

4

510:36

610:36

710:36

8

9

1010:36

1110:36

1210:36

13

1410:37

1510:37

1610:37

17

18

1910:37

20

21

2210:37

2310:37

2410:37

25


109



card -- debit card ending 5283 at an ATM.

Q. Please now look at what has been marked as Exhibit 931

and 930.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you recognize these exhibits?

A. Yes.


A. 931 is the web dialogue screen shots provided by

Wells Fargo showing a cash withdrawal at an ATM.

Q. What about 930?

A. 930 is ATM security photographs of the ATM of that

transaction.

Q. Did you receive these two documents as part of

Defendant Elhuzayel's Wells Fargo Bank records?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. NAM: Government moves to admit these two

exhibits, Your Honor, 931 and 930.

THE COURT: 931 and 930 are received. Well, I'm

sorry. Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?


THE COURT: All right. They're received.

(Exhibit Nos. 930 and 931 received in evidence.)

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Now, showing you Exhibit 931.

(Exhibit displayed.)10:39

1

210:37

3

410:38

510:38

610:38

710:38

810:38

9

1010:38

1110:38

12

1310:38

14

1510:39

1610:39

17

1810:39

19

2010:39

2110:39

2210:39

2310:39

2410:39

25


110



BY MR. NAM:

Q. What kind of a transaction was this for?

A. It was a withdrawal, cash withdrawal.

Q. Of -- in the amount of $20 that you just testified

about?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see a date and time stamp on this exhibit?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is it?

A. May 4th, 2015. The time is -- I can't make out

specifically.

Q. If --

A. Highlight it.

Q. -- we enlarged it, would that be helpful?

A. Again, the only thing I can make out is the "5." I

can't make out the minutes. And "p.m."

Q. Let us turn to Exhibit 930. What does Exhibit 930

show?

A. It shows an ATM surveillance photograph.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. And who is depicted on this photograph?

A. Defendant Nader Elhuzayel.

Q. Where was this ATM?

A. At the Wells Fargo branch at the Lincoln and Gilbert10:40

110:39

210:39

310:39

410:39

5

610:39

710:39

810:39

910:39

1010:39

11

1210:40

1310:40

1410:40

1510:40

16

1710:40

18

1910:40

2010:40

2110:40

2210:40

2310:40

2410:40

25


111



banking center.

Q. How many photographs are there as part of this exhibit?

A. Six.

Q. What is the range of time stamps that you see?

And we can scroll just slowly one by one to show the

jury.

(Various photos displayed.)

THE WITNESS: The first one is at 8:01 p.m.,

8:02 p.m. Uh --


THE WITNESS: Again, at 8:02 p.m.


THE WITNESS: 8:02 p.m.


MR. NAM: At this time, Your Honor, the government

would ask to play Exhibit 718, an audio recording.


(Audio recording played.)


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, the call refers to a $570

check. Which check is it referring to?

A. What exhibit number is that?

Q. Could you point it out from the --

A. On the statement?10:57

1

210:40

310:40

410:40

510:41

6

710:41

810:41

9

1010:41

1110:41

1210:41

1310:41

1410:41

1510:41

16

1710:41

1811:18

1911:18

2010:57

2110:57

22

2310:57

2410:57

25


112



Q. From the statement, Exhibit 902.

A. Yeah. It was the check deposited into --


THE WITNESS: -- Defendant Elhuzayel's Wells Fargo

account on April 29th, 2015, for $570.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Is that the check that you testified about that was

Mr. Saul Salinas' check?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. I'm moving on to May 5th.

A. Okay.

Q. Exhibit 902, page 3, was there a deposit on May 5th?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the amount?

A. $2,195.

Q. Where was the deposit made?

A. At an ATM located at the Wells Fargo banking center at

570 South Brookhurst Street in Anaheim, California, using

debit card ending in 5283.

Q. I'm now showing you Exhibit 933-A, which has been

admitted. What does this exhibit show?


THE WITNESS: It's a check from Shannon and

Paul R. Sherin, dated April 25th, 2015, made payable to

Ponderosa Property Management for $2,195.

110:57

210:57

310:57

410:58

5

610:58

710:58

8

910:58

1010:58

1110:58

1210:58

1310:58

1410:58

1510:58

1610:58

1710:58

18

19

2010:58

21

2210:59

2310:59

24

25


113



BY MR. NAM:

Q. Has Government's Exhibit 934 and 932 been placed in

front of you?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 934 and 932?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What are they?

A. Again, 934 is a web dialogue screen shot provided by

Wells Fargo, dated May 5th, 2015, at 8:32 p.m. for a card --

debit card ending in 5283 for an account ending in 9201 for

a check deposit for $2,195.

Q. And what is Exhibit 932?

A. 932 is four ATM security cameras (sic) dated May 5,

2015.

Q. Did you receive these documents as part of


A. Yes.

MR. NAM: Government moves to admit Exhibits 934

and 932, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any objection, Counsel?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No objection.

THE COURT: 934 and 932 are received.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. I'm now showing you Exhibit 934.11:01

110:59

210:59

3

410:59

510:59

610:59

710:59

810:59

9

10

11

1211:00

1311:00

14

1511:00

16

1711:00

1811:00

19

2011:00

2111:00

2211:00

2311:01

2411:01

25


114




BY MR. NAM:

Q. Is this the web dialogue page that you just described?

A. Yes, it is.



BY MR. NAM:

Q. 932 has multiple photographs?

A. Correct.

Q. What is the date and time stamp range on these

photographs?

A. They're all taken on May 5th, 2015, and two of 'em are

at 8:31 p.m., and the other two are at 8:32 p.m.

Q. Does that match with the time stamp that you see on the

web dialogue page?

A. Yes. The web dialogue says 8:32 p.m.

Q. Who's depicted on these photographs?

A. Three of the photographs I clearly recognize Defendant

Nader Elhuzayel. The fourth photograph has his back turned

so I can't see his face.

The other three have a second person, who I recognize as

Husam Elhuzayel.

Q. Returning to Exhibit 903, page 3, was there a

withdrawal on the same day as the deposit?

A. Yes.11:03

111:01

211:01

311:01

411:01

511:01

611:01

711:01

811:01

911:01

1011:01

11

1211:01

13

1411:02

15

1611:02

1711:02

1811:02

19

20

2111:02

22

2311:02

24

25


115



Q. What was the amount of the withdrawal?

A. $300.

Q. Do you recognize that to be the maximum amount

allowed --

A. Yes.

Q. -- upon depositing a check initially?

A. Yes. The immediate withdrawal.

Q. Moving to the next day, May 6th, in the same bank

record, but before we get into the specific transactions,

May 6th, what is the significance of this date in this case?

A. May 6th is the day before the airline ticket for

Defendant Nader Elhuzayel to travel on to Istanbul, Turkey,

and it was purchased all the way to Tel Aviv.

Q. Did Defendant Elhuzayel visit banks on this day,

May 6th, one day before the date of the plane ticket

purchase?

A. Yes.

Q. How many banks did Defendant Elhuzayel visit May 6th?

A. (No response.)

Q. If you could look at the transactions, and you see on

page 3 of Exhibit 902?

A. Yeah. I see three, three different banks.

Q. Are these three different Wells Fargo banks?

A. Yes.

MR. NAM: At this time, Your Honor, the government11:04

111:03

211:03

311:03

4

511:03

611:03

711:03

811:03

9

10

1111:03

12

13

1411:04

15

16

1711:04

1811:04

1911:04

2011:04

21

2211:04

2311:04

2411:04

25


116



seeks permission to play Exhibit 723.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Oh, before it's played, 723, Special Agent Vicencia,

what is the date and time of this recording?

THE WITNESS: It's made on May 6th, 2015, at

7:40 a.m.

MR. NAM: Yes. Please play the recording.



BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, do you recognize the amount

$1,998.70 (sic) on page 3 of Exhibit 902 anywhere?

A. Yes.

Q. Where is -- where do you see the same number?

A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

Q. On which date do you see the same number recorded?

A. I see it on May 5th, 2015, on the right-hand side of

the statement under the ending daily balance.

Q. What are the two transactions that immediately precede

that balance?

A. There was a deposit that we spoke of earlier of $2,195,

and immediately after that, a withdrawal of $300.

Q. On the 6th of May, when the call recording that we just

heard from, uh, was made at 7:40 a.m., how many withdrawals

1

211:04

311:05

411:05

5

611:05

7

811:05

911:05

1011:05

1111:06

1211:06

13

1411:06

1511:06

1611:06

1711:06

1811:06

19

2011:06

21

2211:07

23

2411:07

25


117



are -- were made from this account?

A. Total of three.

Q. What was the first amount?

A. $200 at an ATM on May 6th at the banking center located

at 2350 West Lincoln Avenue in Anaheim, California, with

card -- debit card ending 5283.

Q. And was that location different from the location where

the withdrawal was made a day earlier?

A. Yes, it was.

MR. NAM: I'd like to ask that Government Exhibits

936, 937, 938, 939, 940, and 941 be placed before the

witness.

(Exhibits displayed.)

BY MR. NAM:

Q. First, please take a look at what has been marked as

Government's Exhibits 936 and 937. Do you recognize

Exhibits 936 and 937?

A. One moment. Yes.

Q. What are Exhibits 936 and 937?

A. 936 is several ATM security photographs from

Wells Fargo; and Exhibit 937 again is a screen shot titled

"Web Page Dialogue," dated May 6th, 2015, at 8:28 a.m. with

the amount -- a cash withdrawal of $200 at the Wells Fargo

banking center, 2350 West Lincoln Avenue in Anaheim.

Q. Did you receive these documents as part of11:09

1

211:07

311:07

411:07

5

6

711:07

8

911:08

1011:08

11

12

1311:08

1411:08

1511:08

16

17

1811:08

1911:08

2011:09

21

22

23

24

25


118




A. Yes.

MR. NAM: Government moves to admit Exhibits 936

and 937, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel Lengyel-Leahu, any objection?


THE COURT: 936 and 937 are received.



BY MR. NAM:



BY MR. NAM:

Q. As you mentioned, there are a number of photographs.

As we move slowly through these photographs, Special Agent

Vicencia, if you could describe who is depicted in each of

those photographs.

A. In this first photograph, I recognize Defendant Nader

Elhuzayel, and the date and time stamp is May 6, 2015, at

8:23 a.m.

Q. And on the second photograph?


THE WITNESS: Again, I recognize Defendant Nader

Elhuzayel and his brother, Husam Elhuzayel, and the same

date, May 6th, it's now at -- also at 8:23 a.m.

1

211:09

311:09

4

511:09

611:09

711:09

811:09

911:09

1011:09

1111:09

1211:10

1311:10

1411:10

15

16

17

1811:10

19

20

2111:10

2211:10

2311:10

24

25


119



MR. NAM: Could we move to the next photograph.


THE WITNESS: This is a photograph at the same

banking center, just from a different angle. It's date- and

time-stamped at the same time, but it has a total of three

individuals', um, back. (Verbatim.)

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Does the third individual appear to be there with the

Defendant Elhuzayel and his brother?

A. No. It appears that that individual's using a separate

ATM.

Q. Is that based on your review of a different photograph

as part of this series?

A. Yes.


THE WITNESS: This photograph is also date- and

time-stamped May 6th, 2015, at 8:23 a.m.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. I'll continue with the next -- I'll proceed with the

next set of questions, Special Agent Vicencia.

MR. NAM: But before that, Your Honor, the

government seeks permission to play Exhibit 726.


MR. NAM: Before it's played, Special Agent

Vicencia, what is the date and time of this recording? It's

111:10

211:10

311:10

4

5

6

711:11

811:11

9

1011:11

11

1211:11

13

1411:11

1511:11

1611:11

17

1811:11

1911:11

20

2111:11

22

2311:11

2411:12

25


120



Exhibit 726.

THE WITNESS: The date is May 6, 2015, and the

time is 8:20 a.m.



BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, going back to Exhibit 902, the

Wells Fargo Bank statement, in addition to the $200

withdrawal that you just testified about, was there another

withdrawal on this same date from Defendant Elhuzayel's

account?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the next amount?

A. The next amount was $900.

Q. Was it from the same Wells Fargo Bank where the $200

withdrawal was made?

A. No. It was at a separate account. I'm sorry, excuse

me -- separate banking center located at 222 South Harbor

Boulevard in Anaheim, California.

Q. Was it made at an ATM or before a teller?

A. It was inside the branch at approximately 11:39 a.m.

Q. Please take a look at what has been marked as

Government's Exhibit 938, if it has been placed before you.

Do you recognize 938?

A. Yes.11:13

1

211:12

3

411:12

511:12

611:12

711:12

8

9

10

11

1211:13

1311:13

1411:13

1511:13

16

1711:13

18

19

2011:13

2111:13

2211:13

23

2411:13

25


121




A. This was a -- call it a screen shot, but it's in a

different format than the previous web dialogues I've

discussed, showing a cash withdrawal of $900.

Q. Is there a time stamp on this document?

A. Yes. The date and time stamp is May 6, 2015, at 11:38.

Q. Did you receive this as part of Defendant Elhuzayel's

Wells Fargo Bank records?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. NAM: The government moves to admit

Exhibit 938, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?





BY MR. NAM:

Q. I'm now showing you Exhibit 938. Is this the document

that you were just reading from?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is the amount that -- is that $900 the amount

of transaction that is shown on this record?

A. Yes. In the middle of the printout here, it says "cash

out $900."

Q. Exhibit 728 is another audio recording that is on the11:15

111:14

211:14

3

4

511:14

611:14

711:14

8

911:14

1011:14

11

1211:14

1311:14

1411:14

1511:14

1611:14

1711:14

1811:14

19

2011:14

2111:14

22

2311:15

24

25


122



disc that you reviewed. What is the date and time of that

recording, 728?

A. Again, it's on May 6th, 2015. The time now is

11:42 a.m.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, the government seeks

permission to play Exhibit 728.

THE COURT: 728. You may play 728.




BY MR. NAM:

Q. The reference to going to State College, what is that

in reference to in this context?


for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that

question.

THE WITNESS: I believe he's -- they're referring

to the banking center located off State College Boulevard in

Anaheim, California.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor. Move

to strike.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Is that where the next withdrawal is made?11:16

1

2

311:15

4

511:15

6

711:15

811:15

911:15

1011:15

1111:16

1211:16

13

1411:16

15

1611:16

17

1811:16

19

20

2111:16

22

2311:16

2411:16

25


123



A. Yes, it is.

Q. Is that indicated on page 3 of Exhibit 902?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the amount that was withdrawn from the

Wells Fargo branch at State College?

A. The amount was $890 at the Wells Fargo banking center

located at 220 South State College Boulevard in Anaheim,

California.

Q. And does the bank statement show the time of

withdrawal?

A. Yes. The time was 11:56 a.m.

Q. On exhibit -- on the list of audio recordings that you

have before you, is there a call that is made to Wells Fargo

from the phone number ending with 3532 in the ten to fifteen

minutes before -- prior to 11:56?

A. Excuse me one second.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, I withdraw the question.

I'll rephrase the question.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. Exhibit 729, what is the date and time for Exhibit 729?

A. May 6, 2015, at 11:44 a.m.

MR. NAM: Permission to play Exhibit 729,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, just a moment. Is the audio

that we just heard was 728. Is 729 also an audio?

111:16

211:16

311:16

411:16

5

611:16

7

8

911:17

10

1111:17

1211:17

13

14

15

1611:17

1711:17

18

1911:17

2011:17

2111:18

2211:18

23

2411:18

25


124



MR. NAM: It is an audio, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You may play 729.



BY MR. NAM:

Q. On page 3 of Exhibit of 902, after the last withdrawal

of $890 was made on May 6th, what was the remaining balance?


THE WITNESS: $8.77.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. I'd like to direct your attention to what has been

marked as Government's Exhibit 939 and 940.

Do you recognize Exhibits 939 and 940?

A. Yes.

Q. What are they?

A. Exhibit 939 are security still photographs inside of

the Wells Fargo banking center at State College. And then

Government's Exhibit 940 is what I also previously described

as a screen shot of a cash withdrawal of $890, dated May 6,

2015.

Q. Did you receive these documents as part of


A. Yes.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, the government moves to

admit Exhibits 939 and 940.

111:18

211:18

311:18

411:18

511:19

611:19

7

811:19

911:19

1011:20

1111:20

12

1311:20

1411:20

1511:20

1611:20

17

18

19

20

2111:21

22

2311:21

2411:21

25


125



THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, any objection?


THE COURT: 939, 940 are received.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Turning first to Exhibit 939, what is the time stamp?


THE WITNESS: 11:55 a.m.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. And who is depicted on this photograph?


Q. If you could move to the next photograph.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. Does this show the same person, Defendant Elhuzayel?

A. Yes. At 11:55 a.m.

MR. NAM: And could we go to the next photograph.


MR. NAM: And if you can move to the last two

photographs in this series.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. What is the time stamp on this one?

MR. NAM: Could we zoom in on the time?

THE WITNESS: 11:58 a.m.11:22

111:21

211:21

311:21

411:21

511:21

611:21

711:21

811:21

911:21

1011:21

1111:21

1211:21

1311:21

1411:21

1511:21

1611:21

1711:21

1811:21

1911:22

20

2111:22

2211:22

2311:22

2411:22

25


126



BY MR. NAM:

Q. Based on these photos, about how long does the

defendant appear to have been in this -- inside this bank?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection, Your Honor. The

documents speak for themselves.


THE WITNESS: Approximately three minutes.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. And do the times that we see connected with the

photographs match up with the time that you see in

Exhibit 940, the printout that you just testified about?

A. Yes. The time stamp on 940 is 11:56 a.m.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. You testified earlier that on May 5th a deposit in the

amount of $2195 -- $2,195 was made on the 5th of May. Was

that check ever returned?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Does the bank statement indicate that at Exhibit 902?

A. Yes. On May 7th, 2015.

Q. Moving to the next set of documents, Exhibit 731, an

audio recording of a telephone call, what is the date and

time for Exhibit 731?

A. May 5, 2015, at 6:42 p.m.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, the government seeks11:24

111:22

211:22

3

411:22

5

611:22

711:22

811:22

911:22

10

11

1211:23

1311:23

1411:23

1511:23

16

17

1811:23

1911:23

2011:24

2111:24

22

23

2411:24

25


127



permission to play Exhibit 731.





BY MR. NAM:

Q. Special Agent Vicencia, are you familiar with the

website checklookup.com?

A. Yes.

Q. What kind of a website is it?

A. It's a website that charges a fee to see if a check is

still valid.

Q. And do you recall how much this particular website

charged as part of this call?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Objection. Relevance,

Your Honor.


THE WITNESS: Five dollars.

BY MR. NAM:

Q. I'd like to direct your attention to Exhibit 903,

page 2.


BY MR. NAM:

Q. 903 has been admitted. It's a Chase Bank statement for

an account number ending with 6763.

1

211:24

311:24

411:18

511:18

611:30

711:30

8

911:30

1011:30

1111:30

12

1311:30

14

1511:31

16

1711:31

1811:31

1911:31

2011:31

21

2211:31

2311:31

2411:31

25


128



What is the first entry on page 2 of this bank

statement?

A. It's a $5 debit dated May 7th, 2015. Sorry, excuse me.

The posting date was May 7th. The debit was on May 6th.

Q. Do you recognize the bank name, Hanmi Bank?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, showing you Exhibit 942-A, which has been admitted

through a prior witness.

Whose check is this?

A. The check is owned by Yoo Yun Kim.

Q. And what is the bank that issued this check?

A. Hanmi Bank.

Q. And what is the amount that is written on this check?

A. $1,005.

Q. And is -- was this check deposited at

Defendant Elhuzayel's Chase Bank account?

A. Yes. It was deposited into his account on May 6th,

2015.

Q. You also see that on page 1 of Exhibit 903?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the date there for this deposit?

A. May 6th, 2015.

Q. And was it made with a card ending with 2333?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And was that the same number that was used to pay $5 at11:34

111:31

2

311:32

4

511:32

611:32

711:32

8

911:33

1011:33

1111:33

1211:33

1311:33

1411:33

1511:33

16

1711:33

18

1911:33

2011:33

2111:33

2211:33

2311:34

2411:34

25


129



checklookup.com that was recorded in the audio call?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Exhibit 941 in front of you?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 941?

A. Yes, I do.


A. It's an ATM security photograph provided by Chase.

Q. Did you receive it as part of Defendant Elhuzayel's

Chase Bank records?

A. Yes.

MR. NAM: The government moves to admit

Exhibit 941, Your Honor.





BY MR. NAM:



BY MR. NAM:

Q. Who is depicted on this photograph?


Q. What is the date and time stamp that you see there?

A. May 6, 2015, at 6:53 p.m.11:35

1

211:34

311:34

411:34

511:34

611:34

711:34

811:34

911:34

10

1111:34

1211:34

13

1411:34

1511:34

1611:34

1711:34

1811:35

1911:35

2011:35

2111:35

2211:35

2311:35

2411:35

25


130



Q. Were there withdrawals -- returning to Exhibit 903.

Were there withdrawals on May 6th or the next day from

Defendant Elhuzayel's Chase Bank account?

A. The next withdrawal I see was on May 7th, the next day,

yes.

Q. How many?

A. Two.

Q. And what was the amount for each?

A. Both were $500.

Q. Together, do they amount to approximately the amount of

the check that was deposited on the 6th of May?

A. Yes. The deposit was $1,005 and the withdrawal was

$1,000.

Q. Did the thousand-five-dollar check get returned?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. And what was the date on that?

A. It was posted on the statement on May 11th, 2015.

Q. Do you see Exhibit 739 on your list of exhibits that

are part of, um -- that are included on the disc at

Exhibit 703?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the date and time when Exhibit 739 was

recorded?

A. May 9th at 5:17 p.m.

Q. And Exhibit 740, what is the date and time for11:37

111:35

2

3

411:36

5

611:36

711:36

811:36

911:36

1011:36

11

1211:36

13

1411:36

1511:36

1611:36

1711:36

1811:37

19

20

2111:37

2211:37

23

2411:37

25


131



Exhibit 740?

A. May 9th, 2015, at 5:21 p.m.

MR. NAM: Your Honor, permission to -- the

government seeks permission to play Exhibits 739 and 740 in

a row.

THE COURT: You may play 739 and 740.

MR. NAM: And these will be the last two

recordings, Your Honor.



MR. NAM: 740.



THE COURT: All right. Why don't we cut the tape

right there. We'll come back to it after lunch. We'll take

the recess now.

You're admonished not to discuss this matter

amongst yourselves nor form or express any opinion

concerning the case. We'll see you at 1:15.

Counsel will remain in session.

(Jury recesses for lunch at 11:59 a.m.)


THE COURT: Sir, if you would remain seated for

just a moment, we're going to go over some evidentiary

items.

1

211:37

311:37

4

5

611:38

711:38

8

911:18

1011:18

1111:39

1211:18

1311:18

1411:59

15

16

1711:59

18

19

2011:59

2111:59

2211:59

2311:59

24

25


132



THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: (To the Clerk:) Deb, we're going to

go through the evidentiary items from this morning and catch

up.

All right. From this morning's session beginning

with 703, that has not been received yet, according to my

records. And 760 -- and those are all the phone calls.

That's the compilation.

Individual phone calls have been received

previously, and we'll go over those, but I don't have 730

received.

THE CLERK: I don't either.

MS. CORRIGAN: That's correct.


THE COURT: I do not have 760, the list of the

phone calls, received yet.

THE CLERK: It was received on June 10th.

THE COURT: It was received. Thank you.

Today there was an additional list. Last Friday

you called out these exhibits at the last part of the day

Counsel: 703, 705, and 705-A, 706, 710, 717, 718, 723, 720,

725, 726, 731. (Verbatim.) There was an objection

concerning lack of foundation to 733, 739, and 740.

This morning, right after you elicited 703 and 760

that you referred to initially, you added 707, which was not

111:59

211:59

3

4

512:00

6

7

8

912:00

10

11

1212:00

1312:00

1412:00

1512:00

16

1712:00

1812:00

1912:00

20

21

22

23

2412:01

25


133



called out on Friday, 728 and 729. Now, we'll get to each

of those in just a moment.

502 was the next exhibit you referred to. It was

a subscriber information. (714) 720-3532. I do not have

that received.

(To the clerk:) Do you, Debbie?

THE CLERK: Which number?

THE COURT: 502.

THE CLERK: Yes.

MS. CORRIGAN: I have it received.

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: You have that received previously?


THE COURT: Okay. Excellent.

The next exhibit referred to was 401. And that

showed plus one (714) 720-3532, the cellphone.

(To the clerk:) Do you have that received, Debbie?

THE CLERK: 41?

THE COURT: 401. Now, my handwritten notes could

be inaccurate, but I have 401.

THE CLERK: I have it.

MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.

THE COURT: 760, which is the list of the phone

calls. But the next audio was April 30th, 2015 -- it's

Exhibit 707 -- and this is the audio in which the defendant

1

2

312:01

4

5

612:01

712:01

812:01

912:01

1012:01

1112:01

1212:01

1312:01

1412:01

1512:01

16

1712:01

1812:01

1912:01

20

2112:02

2212:02

2312:02

24

25


134



identifies himself as "This is Nader," and he wanted to

verify a check and gave his address as 9852 Katella Avenue.

And then you can hear what apparently is his mother in the

background and a discussion and a check amount $356, and

he's verifying his account.

Are you asking for the receipt of that tape?



MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Only to the Court's

characterization of the determination that it was, in fact,

Nader who was saying that it was Nader. The voice on the

phone said it. It's clear about that, but there's been

no -- or at least the government -- the defense continues to

object to whether or not they can authenticate.

THE COURT: Well, let me say, obviously, I haven't

said that in front of the jury, but the foundation's been

laid, Counsel. So 707's received.


THE COURT: Now, would you look at your Indictment

for a moment and look at page 6 and 7. And would you show

me the amount of $356. I don't see it.

MR. NAM: That particular amount is not charges.

THE COURT: Okay. I just want to make sure that

I'm not missing anything. Okay. Thank you.

You then referred to 903 again, which is the12:04

1

2

3

4

5

612:02

712:02

812:02

912:03

10

11

12

13

14

1512:03

16

17

1812:03

1912:03

20

21

2212:03

2312:04

24

25


135



general ledger.

(To the Clerk:) And just to make certain, Debbie,

do you have that received?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Then you refer to 927-A,

and this is the deposit from Noodle 21, and I have 927-A as

received.

(To the Clerk:) Deb, do you have that received?

THE CLERK: Which, was Noodle 21 redacted?

THE COURT: I don't know if it's redacted or not.

MR. NAM: The 927-A is not a redacted version,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you asked 920-A (sic) be

received. Is that what you want?

(To the Clerk:) Deb, do you have 927-A received?

THE CLERK: I do.

THE COURT: Then that's been received.

Then an audio 6- -- 706 was played, and allegedly

you can hear the mother and the brother, Husam, and

allegedly the defendant and the statement that the check was

not a good one.

Are you requesting the receipt of 706?


THE COURT: Objections, Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: No, Your Honor.12:05

1

212:04

3

412:04

512:04

6

7

812:04

912:04

1012:04

1112:04

12

1312:04

14

1512:04

1612:04

1712:04

1812:04

19

20

21

2212:05

2312:05

2412:05

25


136



THE COURT: All right. 706 is received.

(To the clerk:) Deb, do you have that?

THE CLERK: I had it previously received.

THE COURT: Well, it was previously received, but

we're going to make sure. These items were received on

Friday, but we're going to go back through 'em.

THE CLERK: Okay.

THE COURT: 729-A was referred to again. And

729-A had previously been received as a copy in the amount

of $750 from Salina (sic) Landscaping.

(To the clerk:) Do you have that received, Deb? I

do.

THE CLERK: 729-A?

THE COURT: 729-A.

THE CLERK: I don't.

MS. CORRIGAN: Your Honor, that's a transcript.

THE COURT: 929-A.

MS. CORRIGAN: The Court said seven -- okay.

THE COURT: 929-A.

MR. NAM: That's correct, Your Honor. That has

been received into evidence.

MS. CORRIGAN: I have that.

THE COURT: I know that. Now, just a moment.

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Everybody has that received. Then my12:06

112:05

212:05

312:05

412:05

5

6

712:05

812:05

9

10

1112:05

12

1312:05

1412:05

1512:05

1612:05

1712:06

1812:06

1912:06

2012:06

21

2212:06

2312:06

2412:06

25


137



records are accurate.

Then there was a reference back to 903 again,

which is the general ledger; then you moved to 928, the ATM

security photo from Chase, allegedly showing Mr. Husam at

the ATM on May 1, 2015, at 6:33 p.m.

I have that as received.

(To the clerk:) Do you have that as received, Deb?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel?

MR. NAM: Yes, Your honor.

MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I'm not sure.

THE COURT: 928.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: 928, but that's the photograph

of the brother.

THE COURT: That's correct.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Okay. Okay. I wasn't sure I

heard that correctly.

THE COURT: Allegedly, Counsel, I'm picking

your...

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Allegedly.

THE COURT: 928 I have as received.

Then 710 was the next reference. It's a phone

call concerning the Account 6763, and there's an available

balance, according to my handwritten notes of 807 and 22

1

212:06

3

4

5

612:06

712:06

812:06

912:06

1012:06

1112:06

1212:06

1312:06

1412:06

15

1612:06

1712:06

18

1912:06

20

2112:06

2212:06

2312:06

24

25


138



cents; and allegedly, the defendant, Nader Elhuzayel, is

saying, "Yeah, we're good." And eventually this check is

apparently returned on May 1st after it had been posted on

May 4th (verbatim). I do not have that as received.

Are you requesting its receipt, Counsel?


THE COURT: Any objection?


No.

THE COURT: 710 is received.


THE COURT: Then I have Exhibit 902. It's the

withdrawal of $20 on May 4th. I do not have 902 received at

this time. Is there a request?

MR. NAM: 902 has been received into evidence.

THE COURT: It has?

(To the clerk:) Deb, do you have it received?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Excellent.

MS. CORRIGAN: I have the same.

THE COURT: Then I have a reference back to 924-A.

It's a check deposit on April 29th and returned on May 4th

from World Foods.

Do you have that as received, Counsel?

MR. NAM: 924-A, Your Honor?12:08

1

2

3

4

512:07

612:07

712:07

812:07

9

1012:07

1112:07

1212:07

13

14

1512:07

1612:07

1712:07

1812:07

1912:07

2012:07

2112:07

22

23

2412:08

25


139



THE COURT: 924-A.


THE COURT: (To the clerk:) and, Deb, do you?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel?

MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.


THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

I have 931 as received. It's the Wells Fargo

account showing a $20 cash withdrawal.

Mr. Lengyel-Leahu.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: That's what I show.

THE COURT: This particularly concerns you. I'll

ask Ms. Corrigan also, but the government?


THE COURT: (To the clerk:) Deb?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: 930 is the ATM security photograph of

allegedly Nader Elhuzayel. I have that as received.

Mr. Lengyl-Leahu?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Agreed, yes, Your Honor.


MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Government?

MR. NAM: That's correct, Your Honor.12:08

112:08

212:08

312:08

412:08

512:08

612:08

712:08

812:08

912:08

10

1112:08

1212:08

1312:08

14

1512:08

1612:08

1712:08

1812:08

19

2012:08

2112:08

2212:08

2312:08

2412:08

25


140




THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Then we have 718. It's an

audio recording. It's a rather long conversation, and

somebody identifies themselves as Nader Elhuzayel and talks

about an account from $700 down to $100. And this would

apparently conform to Count 18 -- I'm sorry, my apologies --

12, which is the deposit of $570 on 4/29/2015.

Are you requesting the audio of 718 be received?


THE COURT: Counsel?




THE COURT: Counsel, Ms. Corrigan?


THE COURT: All right.

(To the clerk:) Deb, 718 is received now for your

records.

THE CLERK: Yes.


THE COURT: 902 is the next exhibit referred to.

It's the deposit of $2,195 on May 5th. It seems to pertain

to Count 20. And I don't have 902 received.

(To the clerk:) Do you, Deb?12:09

112:08

212:08

312:08

4

5

6

7

8

912:09

1012:09

1112:09

1212:09

1312:09

1412:09

1512:09

1612:09

1712:09

1812:09

19

2012:09

2112:09

2212:09

23

24

25


141



THE CLERK: I do.

THE COURT: Excellent. Counsel for the

government; is that your record also?

MR. NAM: Yes, sir, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, is that your record

as well?



MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.

THE COURT: 933-A is Shannon Sherin over at

Ponderosa Home. I have 933-A as previously received.

(To the clerk:) Do you, Deb?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel for the government?





MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.

THE COURT: 934 I have an ATM deposit. I have

that received as well as 932, which is the ATM security

camera photo of allegedly Mr. Nader Elhuzayel and Husam

Elhuzayel.

I have each of those received. Do you, Counsel?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Yes, Your Honor.12:10

112:09

212:09

3

412:09

512:09

6

712:09

812:09

912:09

1012:09

11

1212:10

1312:10

1412:10

1512:10

1612:10

1712:10

1812:10

1912:10

2012:10

21

22

23

2412:10

25


142





THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Then we move to 723. It's an audio

recording, and there's a discussion concerning $1,998.77.

And I do not have that received. Are you

requesting its receipt, Counsel?

MR. NAM: Yes, Your Honor. 723, Your Honor?

THE COURT: 723.



Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?



MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.


THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: 723's received.


THE COURT: 936 are photos of allegedly Nader and

Husam Elhuzayel. I have that as received. And 936 as

received.

And 937, I have a screen shot of a withdrawal of

$900, May 6, 2015, which seems to pertain to Count 23. The

prior discussion was also a discussion about a withdrawal of

112:10

212:10

312:10

412:10

5

612:10

7

812:10

912:11

1012:11

1112:11

1212:11

1312:11

1412:11

1512:11

1612:11

1712:11

1812:11

1912:11

2012:11

21

22

2312:11

24

25


143



$300 on May 5th, which appears to be, from your perspective,

Count 21. And another withdrawal on May 6th, which is your

Count 22. And now this would allegedly be Count 23.

And I have 936 and 937 received.

Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: My note is slightly different

on 937, Your Honor. I show it to be a -- $200 in my notes.

THE COURT: You're probably right. The 900 and

200 got a little confusing there, and you may be right.

I have 936 and 937 received. Do you?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Yes. 937 is the 200.

THE COURT: Counsel?




THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Then there's an audio recording which

has not been received. It's Exhibit 726. It's allegedly an

audio recording of Nader Elhuzayel talking about going to

another Wells Fargo Bank.

And, Counsel, do you have -- I have that as not

received. Are you requesting that audio recording?

MR. NAM: Yes, Your Honor, the government so

requests.

THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?12:12

1

2

3

412:11

512:11

612:11

7

812:12

9

1012:12

1112:12

1212:12

1312:12

1412:12

1512:12

1612:12

1712:12

18

19

20

2112:12

22

2312:12

24

25


144




THE COURT: This doesn't pertain to you,

Ms. Corrigan.

MS. CORRIGAN: I have it reflected that it was

received on Friday.

THE CLERK: Me too.

THE COURT: It was. But I'm just going back over

them again because there were foundational objections.

And then 733 was still in contention, so let's be

careful.

726 is received.

938 is a time stamp showing a withdrawal of $900.

I have 938 received.

(To the clerk:) Do you, Deb?

THE CLERK: Yes.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Yes, sir.


MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.



THE COURT: 728 is another audio recording. This

is the one about going to State College. There was an

objection about the witness explaining that State College

was not a college -- it was apparently a street -- which was

112:12

212:12

3

412:12

5

612:12

712:12

8

912:12

10

1112:12

1212:12

13

1412:13

1512:13

1612:13

1712:13

1812:13

1912:13

2012:13

2112:13

2212:13

23

24

25


145



overruled.

And is there any objection to 728 being received?


MS. CORRIGAN: No.

THE COURT: 728's received.


THE COURT: (To the clerk:) And, Debbie, you now

have that, right?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: 729 was also played. That is an

audio. It states that the primary account has $898.77, and

there was a reference back to 902, which was previously

received. The last withdrawal was on May 6th for $890.

Counsel, are you requesting receipt of that audio?




THE COURT: It's received.

MS. CORRIGAN: No objection.

THE COURT: (To the clerk:) Deb, you have that

also, right?

THE CLERK: 729.

THE COURT: (To the clerk:) Which is an audio,

Deb.

(Exhibit No. 729 received in evidence.)12:14

1

212:13

312:13

412:13

512:13

612:13

712:13

8

912:13

1012:13

11

12

13

1412:13

1512:13

1612:13

1712:13

1812:14

1912:14

2012:14

21

2212:14

2312:14

24

25


146



THE COURT: 739 is a security photo inside the

Wells Fargo Bank allegedly of Nader Elhuzayel. It appears

to be in reference to also a screen shot, which is 940 and

the withdrawal of $890.

I have 939 and 940 received.

(To the clerk:) Do you also, Debbie?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?



MS. CORRIGAN: Yes.



THE COURT: There's an audio call of May 5, 2015,

which is Exhibit 731. It's at 6:42 p.m. It's a call

verifying two checks with a router (sic) number.

And are you requesting its receipt, Counsel?





THE COURT: (To the clerk:) And, Deb, 731 is now

received.


THE COURT: 903 is account 6793. It's showing the12:15

112:14

2

3

4

512:14

612:14

712:14

812:14

912:14

1012:14

1112:14

1212:14

1312:14

1412:14

15

16

1712:14

1812:14

1912:14

2012:14

2112:14

2212:14

23

2412:15

25


147



$5 debit which was charged back because apparently this was

a checklookup.com call that charges money. I don't have --

and I have this marked as Exhibit 903.

Is that an accurate marking in my notes?

MR. NAM: Exhibit 903?

THE COURT: 903. Is that an accurate marking in

my notes?

MR. NAM: That is correct, Your Honor. That has

been received.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I think 903 is the audio.

THE COURT: (To the clerk:) Deb, has that been

received?

THE CLERK: Yes.


MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: My record is 903 is the audio.

THE COURT: No.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: I got it wrong.

MS. CORRIGAN: 903 is a Chase Bank statement.

THE COURT: It's a Chase.

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Sorry. My bad.

THE COURT: Okay. Any concern or objection?


THE COURT: All right. That was previously

received, 903.

942 is a check, Yoo Yun Kim, for $1,005, deposited12:15

1

2

3

412:15

512:15

612:15

7

812:15

9

1012:15

1112:15

12

1312:15

1412:15

1512:15

1612:15

1712:15

1812:15

1912:15

2012:15

2112:15

2212:15

2312:15

24

25


148



May 6, 2015.

(To the clerk:) I don't have 942-A received, Deb.

Do you have it previously received?

THE CLERK: 942-A I do have received.

THE COURT: You have it previously received.

Is that your record also, Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Again, I wrote the number down

as 942; I have -32. Yes, I have -42 in.

MS. CORRIGAN: I have 942-A.

THE COURT: It's a check.


THE COURT: Do you have that, Counsel?

MS. CORRIGAN: I do. I have it received on

June 10th.

THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, is that your record

also?


THE COURT: Excellent.

941 is an ATM security photo allegedly of Nader

Elhuzayel. I have that as received.

(To the clerk:) Deb, do you have that as received?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And Mr. Lengyel-Leahu?

MR. LENGYEL-LEAHU: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Ms. Corrigan?12:16

1

212:15

3

412:16

512:16

612:16

712:16

8

912:16

1012:16

1112:16

1212:16

1312:16

14

1512:16

16

1712:16

1812:16

1912:16

20

2112:16

2212:16

2312:16

2412:16

25


149



MS. CORRIGAN: Agreed.



THE COURT: 739 and 940 are the two audios played

back to back just before the recess. Are you requesting

their receipt, Counsel?


THE COURT: They seem to be self-authenticating.

Mr. Lengyel-Leahu, is that accurate?


MS. CORRIGAN: Agreed.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. And the

Government 739, 740 is then received.


THE COURT: Check your records because this is

what is missing. If you go back to Friday. Let's check

these off. 733 has never been offered.

MR. NAM: Government is not offering 733 anymore,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

Now, how are we doing? How far along are you with

this witness? 'Cause I heard that there was going to be

split examination of this witness, another U.S. Attorney.

MR. NAM: We're nearing -- uh, after this audio is

completed --

112:16

212:16

312:16

412:16

5

6

712:16

812:16

912:16

1012:16

1112:16

1212:16

13

1412:17

1512:17

16

17

1812:17

19

2012:17

2112:17

22

23

2412:17

25


150



THE COURT: You have about $5,000 in one of the

deposits.

MR. NAM: That's correct, Your Honor. And a

withdrawal.

THE COURT: $200.

MR. NAM: That's correct, Your Honor. So it will

be very short thereafter. There will not be any audios

played thereafter.

THE COURT: Then what's going to happen? Are you

done with that portion of your examination?

MR. NAM: And with the witness altogether.

Ms. Heinz is going to take over at that point.

THE COURT: With this witness?


THE COURT: What are you going to be examining on?

MS. HEINZ: I'm going to be examining him on part

of the federal financial aid fraud, and I'm anticipating 15

minutes.

THE COURT: And those are the banks having --

MS. HEINZ: Those are the banks -- that's the bank

section of the federal financial aid fraud.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Now, don't let these

witnesses go away. Is Alyssa Powell out in the hallway? Is

she here? That's a civilian person, and we need to get to

her at some point.

112:17

2

312:17

4

512:17

612:17

7

8

912:17

10

1112:17

12

1312:18

1412:18

1512:18

1612:18

17

18

1912:18

2012:18

21

2212:18

23

24

25


151




THE COURT: Is Michael Khouri present out in the

hallway?

MR. NAM: He is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We need to get to these people. These

are civilians just standing around. I'll leave that to you.

But minimally, they'll testify tonight, and minimally, I

don't want to hear that Misti Larraga is not available, Mark

Fendrich, Angela Azer, Marisol Mendoza, Matthew Whittemore,

Officer Ryan Starr, and Mark Espiritu. We're not going home

until they're done. That can be midnight or that can be

4:00 o'clock. It doesn't matter. But we finish. Fair

enough? In other words, don't let them wander off thinking

that we've moved a little more slowly because we've had to

because of the Orlando shooting today. That's not the fault

of anybody.

But we'll complete, minimally, all of those

witnesses today. Minimally.

Now, we need to get busy because you'll be amazed

at how much time is spent on just silly paperwork. And by

that I mean redundant instructions. So if you stay there

for just a moment, I spent my weekend going over the

instructions. I want to share some thoughts with you. Just

remain seated.

(Court exits the bench.)12:19

112:18

212:18

3

412:18

512:18

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1712:19

18

1912:19

20

21

22

23

24

25


152



THE COURT: Counsel, come up to the bench. I'll

make a record as we go, and I'll speak loudly.

(To the Reporter:) Now, Deb, can you hear me?

THE REPORTER: I can.

THE COURT: Excellent. We're going to spend an

hour of silliness that you can accomplish over lunch.

DISCUSSION RE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

THE COURT: I have no concern or complaint about

the instructions, but a lot of these instructions were

pre-instructions that I never gave. We launched into the

case.

So, by way of example, your instructions are

mostly pre-instructions until we get to -- well, let's just

go over them for a moment. It's easier for me.

Instruction No. 1. It's not needed.

Instruction No. 2. Do the parties want the actual

indictment included, or are you satisfied with the summation

of charges? In other words, don't answer these questions

now.

Instruction No. 3. You're going to see this is

redundant. You're to pick up this instruction later on

because this is intended as a pre-instruction.

Instruction No. 4 is also redundant. You're going

to pick that up later in the packet, but just double-check

because, of course, we're going to give it.

112:20

2

312:20

412:20

512:20

6

712:20

812:20

9

10

11

1212:21

13

14

1512:21

1612:21

17

18

19

2012:22

21

22

2312:22

24

25


153



Instruction No. 5. Direct or circumstantial

evidence. I'm not certain if that's redundant, if it was

given later on or not. So just check. Of course we're

going to give it.

Instruction No. 6. Absolutely. We've already

done that. In other words, if you'd like it included to

make a nice round packet, that's fine. I'll give it. But

it's not necessary.

You'll see Instruction No. 7 again later on in the

same packet. These are good clean instructions. I wanna

thank you for them. I just didn't give 'em.

Instruction No. 8. A few words about the conduct

of jurors. It's unnecessary now because we've been doing

that, I hope, along the way.

Instruction No. 9. This was a pre-instruction.

It's not needed now.

In other words, we'll spend an hour of your time

tonight, literally, and I'm trying to preserve you for a

good presentation.

Instruction No. 10. This is, if you wish to take

notes, that's fine, but it has to be written in the past

tense now. It can't be "If you wish to take notes."

"Some of you have taken notes" -- and I think the

only relevant paragraph is the last one. Whether or not you

take notes, or took notes, you should rely on your own

112:22

2

3

4

512:22

6

7

8

912:22

10

11

1212:23

13

14

1512:23

16

1712:23

18

19

2012:23

21

22

2312:23

24

25


154



memory of the evidence. The first paragraph is irrelevant,

but I'll leave that up to you.

Instruction No. 11. The next phase of the trial

will now begin. Well, it's not needed.

Instruction No. 12. Government's proposed

language is in English. Absolutely. But it has to be

written in the past tense. That you've heard Vietnamese and

Korean.

Instruction No. 13. Absolutely. This is a

critical instruction. Just make sure it's eventually

included in our regular packet. I think it's redundant.

Absolutely, it needs to be given.

Now, you really start -- well, strike that.

You're about to take your first break. We've had a lot of

first breaks.

We don't need that.

"From time to time during the trial, it

may become necessary for me to take up

legal matters."

If you want that included, we just write it in the

past tense, "We took up legal matters," but there haven't

been many sidebars. Most of those came for cause during

jury selection. So I leave that to you. I really don't

care.

Instruction No. 16. I'm not certain.12:24

1

2

312:23

4

512:23

6

7

8

912:24

10

11

12

1312:24

14

15

1612:24

1712:24

18

19

2012:24

21

22

23

24

25


155



MS. HEINZ: So far --

THE COURT: So far we haven't run into that

problem, so we're alerted to it.

Instruction No. 17. Absolutely.

MS. HEINZ: Yes.

THE COURT: In fact, you can make that more

explicit if you want to.

Instruction No. 18. We need to minimally modify

that. So I was writing this weekend:

"You heard recordings that have been

received into evidence. These

recordings contain subtitles that are

being provided to help you."

In other words, we're just rewriting that

instruction into a past tense form.

And the same thing with instruction No. 19. In

fact, you can have my instructions if you want. I've just

been writing on them.

"You heard testimony of a witness who

testified in the Korean and Vietnamese

languages, or language. These witnesses

testified through an official court

interpreter."

In other words, we're just writing it in the past

tense, not the future tense.

112:25

212:25

3

412:25

512:25

612:25

7

812:25

9

1012:25

11

12

13

1412:25

15

1612:25

17

18

1912:25

20

21

22

23

2412:25

25


156



On Instruction Number 20. The same thing:

"You heard evidence that was received

for a limited purpose."

And here, you and Ms. Corrigan might wanna segment

out the limited purpose from Ms. Corrigan's perspective

about the banking activity. So I'm encouraging you to

redraft that.

Your instructions really begin on Instruction

No. 21. And I just wanna make certain we don't miss

anything.

And so let's take that up tonight, but I think we

can literally save an hour of your time just milling around

tonight. And let's just go that far today, and I'll try to

take another matter. I'm going to go through lunch, but I

want you to have some lunch.

Now, make sure you have your instructions with you

tonight, though. Okay?

All right. You go have a nice lunch.

Counsel, would you like me -- in light of the

Orlando shootings, Counsel, the toll is probably going to

rise. And there's two ways to resolve the admonitions this

morning and our individual voir dire of the jury.

And you've really gotta give me your guidance as

to what you need, and I'm gonna look to the defense first.

Although the government's input's important, I think this is

112:26

212:26

3

412:26

5

6

7

812:26

9

10

1112:26

12

13

14

15

1612:26

17

1812:27

1912:27

20

21

22

2312:27

24

25


157



particularly of concern, obviously, to the defense.

I can admonish them again at the end of the day.

I can admonish them tomorrow morning and at the end of the

day or at lunchtime or whatever you'd like. The difficult

call, I recognize, for you is do I keep heightening that, or

do you want that admonishment? If so, I'm happy to give it

at any time. So why don't you talk, as counsel, first.

Talk to the government see if there's a consensus

about how you'd like the Court to admonish the jury that the

shootings in Orlando do not pertain to this case. And if

you would like me to do so, I would appreciate you drafting

it for me so I have your words.

All right. Sir, thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Step down.

All right. If you would, be kind enough to take

these two gentlemen out and get them fed.

(Lunch recess held at 12:29 p.m.)

(Further proceedings reported by Deborah Parker

in Volume II.)

-oOo-

1

212:27

3

4

5

6

7

812:28

9

10

11

12

1312:28

1412:28

1512:28

1612:28

17

1812:29

1912:29

20

2112:29

2212:29

23

24

25


158



-oOo-

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that pursuant to Section 753,

Title 28, United States Code, the foregoing is a true and

correct transcript of the stenographically reported

proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and that the

transcript page format is in conformance with the

regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Date: March 9, 2017

/s/ Debbie Gale

_________________________________ DEBBIE GALE, U.S. COURT REPORTER CSR NO. 9472, RPR, CCRR

112:29

212:29

312:29

412:29

512:29

6

7

8

9

10

1112:29

1212:29

1312:29

1412:2912:29

1512:2912:29

1612:29

1712:29

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


8:15-CR-0060-DOC - 6/13/2016 - Day 5, Volume I 1 UNITED ......1 debbie gale, u.s. court reporter...

Documents

Transcript of 8:15-CR-0060-DOC - 6/13/2016 - Day 5, Volume I 1 UNITED ......1 debbie gale, u.s. court reporter...