1

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

3 SOUTHERN DIVISION

5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL

) NO. TDC-18-0012
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 v. )
)
8 MARK T. LAMBERT, )
)
9 Defendant. )

10 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE THEODORE D. CHUANG
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2019; 9:05 A.M.
12 GREENBELT, MARYLAND

13 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

14 OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: DAVID IRA SALEM, ESQUIRE
15 6406 Ivy Lane
Suite 800
16 Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
(301) 344-4433
17 david.salem@usdoj.gov
-and-
18 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FRAUD SECTION, FCPA UNIT
19 BY: DEREK J. ETTINGER, ESQUIRE
BY: VANESSA A. SISTI, ESQUIRE
20 1400 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20005
21 202-616-2362

22

23 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:

Renee A. Ewing, RPR, RMR, CRR - (301) 344-3227
24
***COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION OF STENOTYPE NOTES***
25
 2

1 APPEARANCES (Continued):

2 FOR THE DEFENDANT:

3 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

BY: THOMAS C. HILL, ESQUIRE
4 BY: FABIO LEONARDI, ESQUIRE
BY: WILLIAM M. SULLIVAN, JR., ESQUIRE
5 1200 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
6 (202) 663-8713
william.sullivan@pillsburylaw.com
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 3

1 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Please be

2 seated.

3 (Counsel reply, "Good morning, Your Honor.")

4 THE DEPUTY CLERK: The matter now pending before this

5 Court is Criminal No. TDC-18-012, United States of America vs.

6 Mark T. Lambert. We are here for the purpose of a pretrial

7 conference.

8 Counsel, please identify yourselves for the record.

9 MS. SALEM: Thank you. Your Honor, David Salem,

10 Vanessa Sisti, and Derek Ettinger on behalf of the United

11 States.

12 THE COURT: Good morning.

13 MR. SALEM: Good morning.

14 MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, Your Honor. William

15 Sullivan, Tom Hill, Fabio Leonardi on behalf of Mark Lambert,

16 who is present in the courtroom.

17 THE COURT: Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Lambert.

18 So we are here to continue the pretrial conference. I

19 know the parties are busy on other matters. I will try to make

20 this as crisp as possible so you can get back to the rest of

21 your preparations.

22 I did feel, although I think I am largely ready to give

23 you guidance on the rest of the motions, and we can talk about

24 the jury instructions as well, I did have some remaining

25 questions, and, obviously, I value all of your opinions, so I

 4

1 thought it would be helpful to get here and talk about those

2 things.

3 First off, with the sealed filing, I just wanted to make

4 sure, I think I issued an order on Friday based on your

5 acknowledgment that some of it could go to the defense.

6 Did that go out on Friday or Saturday?

7 MS. SALEM: Yes, Your Honor. It went out on

8 Saturday. Mr. Leonardi pointed out something that was probably

9 a mistake on my part so I --

10 THE COURT: The Lambert/Fisk issue?

11 MS. SALEM: Yes.

12 THE COURT: Yes. I sort of assumed that. I noticed

13 that, too.

14 MS. SALEM: I apologize for that. We corrected that

15 as well and that should be okay.

16 THE COURT: Okay. And then I did want to ask

17 whether, having seen that, Mr. Sullivan, if there is anything

18 you want to add from your perspective since you haven't had a

19 chance to say anything about that?

20 MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor. We think it's

21 consistent with the representations that I made when we were

22 last together. We are certainly interested in the ability to

23 adduce evidence relating to Mr. Campbell's bringing the

24 extortion issues to the minds of the government and the fact

25 that he was compelled by the government to wear a wire and to

 5

1 pursue a meeting with my client and Mr. Condrey.

2 Mr. Fisk, for the same reasons, acting as a government

3 operative at the same time that he was pursuing his own private

4 plans with Mr. Mikerin against my client and my client's

5 business, is relevant for the jury's assessment as to the

6 credibility of Mr. Condrey.

7 THE COURT: How is that -- because I was going to ask

8 again sort of what is the -- I understand it makes for good

9 theater, but what exactly is the relevance of Mr. Fisk's prior

10 or separate involvement with the government on non-criminal

11 matters? How is that relevant on Mr. Condrey?

12 MR. SULLIVAN: It's relevant to -- for purposes of

13 our theory of defense or one of our theories of defense.

14 Mr. Fisk is not a trustworthy individual. At the same time,

15 Mr. Fisk is making representations to Mr. Ravenscroft and

16 Mr. Condrey, and, to a very limited extent, almost nil, knows

17 of Mark Lambert, and Mark doesn't engage with him whatsoever,

18 he's acting as a government agent at the same time.

19 That implicates his credibility, and his credibility will

20 be at issue in the defense case in terms of what he says to

21 Mr. Ravenscroft and what he says to Mr. Condrey.

22 THE COURT: I don't even know who Mr. Ravenscroft is.

23 Maybe you can fill me in.

24 MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry. Mr. Ravenscroft was a

25 principal at Edlow which is the company that all of the

 6

1 relevant individuals, Mr. Condrey, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Fisk were a

2 part of when they moved away and to join TLI.

3 Mr. Fisk was a primary participant, one of the leaders,

4 one of the primary leaders. He's making representations

5 throughout this case. His credibility is at issue for the

6 defense. The fact that he's concealed himself to two

7 principals in this case as an FBI government informant

8 implicates his credibility, and the jury is entitled to

9 understand that.

10 THE COURT: Wait a minute. I guess I am not sure I

11 understand the relationships.

12 Mr. Salem, can you just clarify for me -- my

13 understanding was Mr. Fisk was working with the government on

14 non-criminal matters in the same time frame. I don't recall,

15 but I know Mr. Campbell, at some point, was working with the

16 government on criminal matters, but I didn't think that

17 Mr. Fisk was. Is that correct?

18 MS. SALEM: That's correct, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Was he ever cooperating with, you know,

20 law enforcement on a criminal investigation of Mr. Mikerin or

21 anyone else?

22 MS. SALEM: To the best of my knowledge from the

23 information I read, all he was doing was source reporting, as I

24 indicated in the letter. He was not involved in any criminal

25 case, did not get wired up for anything, and was not otherwise
 7

1 involved like Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell, of course, was the

2 individual who came to the government indicating he had been

3 extorted, and that led to that issue.

4 THE COURT: No. I understand. Now back to

5 Mr. Sullivan.

6 MR. SULLIVAN: Your Honor, I can provide more detail

7 in camera or at the bench. I am concerned about going a little

8 too far now, but I am safe in saying that it goes to Mr. Fisk's

9 credibility on several levels. I am happy to approach and

10 outline that for you. I will open -- you know, I plan to open

11 with it. I am not, you know, necessarily interested in

12 developing it today before the government.

13 THE COURT: I understand. So, to the extent we might

14 need that, we will do that all at once at the end. Let me get

15 some other questions out that I think --

16 MR. SULLIVAN: It does go to credibility. That's the

17 point I'm making.

18 THE COURT: Of Mr. Fisk or Mr. Condrey?

19 MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Fisk.

20 THE COURT: Okay. I think I understand.

21 So then Mr. Campbell, the argument here seems to be --

22 there is an issue here about whether we are going to get into

23 Mr. Campbell's -- I guess his company was Sigma. Correct?

24 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

25 THE COURT: And what was happening between

 8

1 Mr. Mikerin and Sigma? You had said there was this issue about

2 extortion, alleged extortion of Sigma. Why is that -- well,

3 what are you planning to say about or offer regarding the

4 interactions between Mikerin and Sigma and why is that relevant

5 to our case?

6 MR. SULLIVAN: Because what Mr. Campbell brought to

7 the FBI is consistent with the defense theory, not specifically

8 regarding extortion, Your Honor, I know that's another topic we

9 will be discussing today, but is significant to and is

10 consistent with another theory of defense. It is also, I

11 think, helpful evidence for the defense and not prejudicial in

12 any way, shape, or form that Mr. Campbell was recruited by the

13 FBI to wear a wire and to engage with my client and Mr. Condrey

14 and nothing came of it.

15 THE COURT: Okay. I understand that part. And,

16 actually, at this point, I am inclined, even though nothing

17 came of it, and we can get into -- later on, we can get into

18 questions about what actual testimony is admissible for other

19 reasons, but I am inclined to allow you to elicit testimony or

20 evidence about things involving the investigation of TLI, which

21 includes this episode with the wire, but what I am not sure

22 about -- I am not inclined at this point, on the other hand, to

23 allow you to get into issues regarding what the interactions

24 were between Mikerin and Sigma.

25 Tell me why that is relevant if it is, or if you are

 9

1 attempting to pursue that?

2 MR. SULLIVAN: That's another one I'd like to

3 approach on because it really goes the heart of the defense

4 here, and I think the defense is totally admissible, would be

5 consistent with the facts that we have developed, and I think,

6 if I am allowed to do that, the Court would understand.

7 THE COURT: So why isn't that effectively -- I mean,

8 what I understood from the last time we talked was one of your

9 theories -- the only one I have sort of heard that I can get my

10 arms around is the idea that, well, to the extent Mikerin may

11 have been extorting Sigma either through threatening them

12 with -- I think there is references in some of the documents to

13 threatening physical harm to Mr. Campbell or whether by Mikerin

14 or by other people, that that may be what was going on over

15 here with TLI and Condrey and Lambert. And I guess the

16 concerns I have with that, one, is we don't have any evidence,

17 from what either side has said, that any of that was happening

18 on the TLI side, and if that's the case, why isn't the alleged

19 extortion, even if it occurred with respect to Sigma, I mean,

20 why isn't it effectively 404(b) where you are trying to infer

21 that Mikerin was doing something in a different instance

22 because of what he did somewhere else, and, yet, we don't have

23 the parallel similarity that you normally would need to even

24 get to that point?

25 MR. SULLIVAN: What --

 10

1 THE COURT: Or is that not your theory and you have a

2 different theory?

3 MR. SULLIVAN: No. You are on track, Your Honor.

4 What I can say in open court is we don't have evidence of

5 extortion by violence, force, or threat, and we are not going

6 to pursue that.

7 There is a parallel defense theory which fits the facts

8 that we are going to pursue, and that is why Mr. Campbell is

9 relevant in connection with the information he brings to the

10 FBI in the first instance.

11 It's consistent with Mr. Salem's letter in terms of his

12 evaluation of Mr. Campbell, and you have already ruled that

13 evidence about Mr. Campbell wearing a wire is -- is allowed.

14 THE COURT: I did not say that.

15 MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I thought you might be inclined.

16 THE COURT: I said I am inclined. Just as I am

17 inclined to exclude everything about Sigma, I am going to give

18 both sides an opportunity to move me off of that.

19 MR. SULLIVAN: I mean, it goes to an alternative

20 explanation as to facts that will be admissible is what I'm

21 saying. I am happy to give you specifics at the bench.

22 THE COURT: Okay. We will do that in a minute. Let

23 me see if there is anything else I can ask about that doesn't

24 get to us that point.

25 Without getting into the gory details of every Rule of

 11

1 Evidence, but just, it occurred to me, when I am thinking about

2 Mr. Campbell's efforts to get recorded conversations about, you

3 know, from Lambert and/or Condrey, the government seems to have

4 no interest in that episode. You obviously do.

5 Thinking one step ahead, though, to what extent is the --

6 are there any evidentiary concerns with that recording or

7 testimony about that interaction where, effectively, you are

8 planning to have a witness offer statements by either

9 Mr. Condrey or even by Mr. Lambert, but in either case --

10 MR. SULLIVAN: That's a good question, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: -- how does that come in from your side?

12 MR. SULLIVAN: No. I appreciate that. That's a good

13 anticipatory question. Frankly, we don't intend to offer the

14 recording itself or anything that was said. We will simply

15 elicit that nothing incriminating was said whatsoever. Nothing

16 suggestive of the government's case or government's theory was

17 said whatsoever. We don't need to get into the specifics. We

18 think it's enough to demonstrate through Mr. Campbell, or,

19 actually, through the agent, that nothing of any moment, of any

20 merit, of any significance was developed in that conversation.

21 THE COURT: Okay. Now, let me, just before we -- I

22 probably will take an ex parte discussion with you, and if the

23 government has its own sort of strategic things they want to

24 raise with me, I will give them that opportunity, too, but --

25 so Mr. Salem or whoever from the government's side, the one

 12

1 thing that strikes me about this whole episode is the

2 government's filing, and I said it last time, but I wasn't

3 completely sure because I hadn't had the sealed filing yet, but

4 the government's view of Campbell is he's part of some

5 completely separate conspiracy, but when I went back and read

6 both Campbell's civil complaint, which you may or may not agree

7 with the accuracy of it but it is there, as well as the other

8 filings, you know, the charging documents from your side on the

9 Mikerin case and otherwise, the argument that these two things

10 have nothing to do with each other doesn't feel completely

11 right.

12 It seems as if, obviously, Mikerin is involved in what's

13 going on with Sigma and with TLI, but, at least according to

14 Mr. Campbell, Mr. Fisk is involved in facilitating the --

15 whatever the crime was with respect to Sigma. So how am I --

16 how do you convince me that these two things really are

17 separate episodes as opposed to part of some large overarching

18 activity?

19 MS. SALEM: Going into all the details might take

20 some time, but the -- the thought I have is that if, you know,

21 if the government has charged a cocaine conspiracy involving,

22 you know, five people, two of whom are also involved in a

23 separate heroin conspiracy in another district, I mean, that

24 doesn't mean that there is information from that district and

25 information from that other conspiracy that comes into the case
 13

1 automatically. And in fact --

2 THE COURT: Well, I understand that in theory. I

3 guess part of the issue is, tell me if this is right or not,

4 but according to Mr. Campbell's complaint, Mr. Fisk, on behalf

5 of TLI, brought Mr. Campbell -- helped to introduce

6 Mr. Campbell to Mr. Mikerin through the fact that I guess Sigma

7 got a subcontract of some type -- the way I read it was that

8 Sigma was doing some sort of government services type activity,

9 and Mr. Fisk helped set that up for him, and that Mr. Fisk may

10 have been getting a cut of -- or was getting payments from

11 Mr. Campbell as part of that issue between Mikerin and Sigma.

12 Isn't that right?

13 MS. SALEM: I don't know that he got payments from

14 Mr. Campbell. I mean, he might have --

15 THE COURT: That whole discussion about envelopes

16 being passed out, it seemed like they were being given to

17 Mr. Fisk as well.

18 MS. SALEM: That may be. That may be.

19 THE COURT: So how do I separate the two, the Sigma

20 side and the TLI side?

21 MS. SALEM: So, once again, the players are

22 different. There is a commonality of Mr. Fisk, perhaps, but

23 he's involved in a different case with Mr. Campbell and

24 Mr. Mikerin, and just because he is either being paid by or

25 paying through Mr. Campbell to Mr. Mikerin even in an extortion

 14

1 context doesn't mean it has anything to do with the charged

2 counts in this case.

3 THE COURT: I agree with that at least in terms of

4 the charged counts. But then is TLI -- or, rather, you agree

5 that Mr. Campbell's company, Sigma, was brought into a

6 relationship with Mr. Mikerin by Mr. Fisk?

7 MS. SALEM: I mean, just to the extent I know the

8 facts. I mean, some of those -- the allegations may be more

9 from Mr. Campbell than Mr. Fisk who we didn't know about, and

10 exactly who introduced whom to Mr. Mikerin, I can't say 100

11 percent certainly.

12 But, again, Your Honor, I had this -- this issue that

13 this is -- this is reverse 404(b). I think you have pointed

14 that out. I mean, this is really a separate -- a separate set

15 of transactions between some similar people, some identical

16 people, and it would be, at the very least, prejudicial under

17 403 to allow them to bring in the, you know, the sort of

18 separate transactions in order to taint this case somehow with

19 the idea that because Mr. Fisk, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Mikerin

20 were involved in an extortionate relationship, that maybe one

21 existed here when, in fact, there is no evidence that that

22 happened or wasn't charged that way.

23 THE COURT: What about the interactions between

24 Mr. Campbell -- I mean his efforts to gain -- or the

25 government's recruiting of him or asking him to help try to

 15

1 gather evidence against whether it's TLI, Condrey, Lambert?

2 That's not a different case; that's this case?

3 MS. SALEM: That's this case.

4 THE COURT: You are just saying that that didn't come

5 to anything, but as we had said last time, the defense, at

6 least in my view, is entitled to raise some questions about how

7 the government did its investigation, not to say that they had

8 to or do certain things or not do certain things, but just to

9 show that -- a lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so why

10 can't they offer evidence that the defense -- the government

11 wanted to, you know, try to set up an incriminating

12 conversation and it failed? Why can't they offer that through

13 Mr. Campbell?

14 MS. SALEM: Well, the -- I think there are two

15 reasons for that. Number one, it failed. I mean, I think the

16 -- so you are planting the seed.

17 THE COURT: Well, the same way that if people say,

18 look, you know, they took some fingerprints and they tried to

19 do a match and it was inconclusive, the defense often puts in

20 evidence like that just to show, look, you don't have all the

21 great proof that you would like to have.

22 MS. SALEM: I understand. But it's not as if

23 Mr. Campbell asked directly whether somebody was doing some,

24 you know, transactions with Mr. Mikerin that was somehow

25 against the law. I mean, they really -- all the -- all the
 16

1 recording is is just superficial conversation. It never came

2 to anything. So the fact that he's not admitted to anything in

3 the sense that he was never asked about it shouldn't be

4 relevant to the case. I mean, he's probably had a million

5 conversations with people where he's not admitted anything.

6 Just because somebody is wearing a wire and he doesn't know

7 about it, unless there is a question asked that might have

8 elicited something for which the absence of that response might

9 be appropriately relevant, and I don't want to concede that for

10 sure, but at least if that happened, we'd be in a different

11 situation. But just because they have superficial conversation

12 and nothing comes of it, and he doesn't really talk about

13 Mikerin and there is no indication of what the relationship is

14 with Mikerin, they shouldn't be able to bring that into the

15 case.

16 THE COURT: Let me ask this one step back. Why was

17 it that Campbell was brought into this in the first place? He

18 had a prior relationship, presumably, with these individuals.

19 What was that relationship?

20 MS. SALEM: So I think, again, I think the hint of

21 all of that was that Mr. Campbell had a relationship with TLI

22 through Rod Fisk and Mr. Mikerin, and on separate evidence that

23 the Department of Energy and the FBI were developing, they went

24 in the direction of looking at TLI, and that's separate from

25 anything Mr. Campbell gave them. And then in -- with

 17

1 understanding that Mr. Campbell was willing to get wired up for

2 this, they thought they could use him to see if the evidence

3 they developed, again, separate from Mr. Campbell, might --

4 Mr. Campbell's recording might lead to something, and it

5 didn't.

6 THE COURT: But did he know Mr. Condrey and

7 Mr. Lambert before this?

8 MS. SALEM: My understanding is he knew Mr. Fisk. He

9 may have met Mr. Condrey and Mr. Lambert, but it's not like he

10 was friendly with them and, you know, went to numerous

11 conferences and socialized with them on a regular basis.

12 That's my understanding.

13 THE COURT: But how were they trying to -- I think I

14 have the recording but I don't have any of the pre-discussion

15 between the agents and Mr. Campbell. What did they want him to

16 say or -- there is usually a plan of some sort.

17 MS. SALEM: Essentially to talk to see if, you know,

18 they would discuss Mr. Mikerin and the fact that Mr. Mikerin

19 may have been soliciting bribes from them.

20 THE COURT: Okay.

21 MS. SALEM: And so that didn't happen. I mean, I

22 just feel -- it would be incredibly prejudicial to have

23 somebody be able to say that we had a conversation since he

24 didn't admit that he was involved in anything that indicates

25 he's not guilty.

 18

1 THE COURT: But you can cross-examine on, well, what

2 kind of questions did you ask, and if you only asked about what

3 food you were ordering, which is part of what I heard, then the

4 jury might say, well, you are right, it doesn't really go very

5 far, but it's up to let the jury decide that.

6 MS. SALEM: I understand, but the cat is out of the

7 bag with a question like that that hints at, no matter what I

8 do on cross-examination, any one of us does, the fact is the

9 seed has been planted that somehow if he doesn't say something,

10 then he may not be guilty, and that should just not be part of

11 this case. The things are what he did say, and if he said

12 something like I didn't do it, I would understand that and we'd

13 be in a different position, but nothing like that happened.

14 THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything you want to

15 offer -- I am going to give Mr. Sullivan the opportunity to

16 give me some information ex parte.

17 Is there anything the government wants to offer that

18 would help elucidate the issue on Campbell, Fisk, and the

19 Mikerin payments?

20 MS. SALEM: Your Honor, it's hard to say because I am

21 not exactly sure what is going to be said to you, and so --

22 THE COURT: Well, right.

23 MS. SALEM: -- under the circumstances, I am not sure

24 how to address it. I mean, I think we can. I don't know if

25 you can phrase questions to us based on what they tell you that
 19

1 is fair so that we could try to give you some additional

2 information if there is any.

3 THE COURT: I'm just saying, from your side, you

4 know, for example -- actually, one last question I meant to ask

5 you more on the Fisk piece, in the papers, there was a

6 reference to the defense had the issue of whether Mr. Fisk, the

7 agents working with Mr. Fisk on his non-criminal investigation

8 role were the same or different from the ones who worked these

9 criminal investigations. Are those different people or are

10 they the same people?

11 MS. SALEM: From my recollection of the readings of

12 this, they are different people. There is one -- there may be

13 one overlap person, but the -- the handling, if you will, of

14 these individuals was done by separate people.

15 THE COURT: So what I meant was whether, to the

16 extent he was providing information for non-criminal

17 investigative purposes, were any of the agents who were working

18 with him on that involved in the criminal investigations that

19 we have here?

20 MS. SALEM: So, the answer to that -- the answer to

21 that is probably there was one person, I think, an FBI agent

22 who was originally on a counterintelligence side and then left

23 or did the criminal side, and so he may have been involved in

24 debriefing on the counterintelligence side, but he wasn't --

25 THE COURT: Is that agent a witness in this case?

 20

1 MS. SALEM: He is not.

2 THE COURT: Okay.

3 MS. SALEM: He's off the case, in fact.

4 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Mr. Sullivan, maybe you can

5 approach, and we can, under seal, hear anything else you want

6 to offer about your theories that would help to explain why

7 some of these issues are relevant or not.

8 MR. SULLIVAN: Sure. Before I approach, I'd like to

9 know the identity of that agent, and, secondly, to help the

10 Court, I have information that is that Mr. Campbell called

11 Mr. Condrey saying he wanted to meet and discuss something that

12 Rod was doing, which is significant to the extent that it is,

13 as we submit, an intent to entrap or at least to develop

14 evidence of this case from either Daren or Mr. Lambert. So

15 it's not just menu items. There was a specific purpose for

16 this meeting.

17 THE COURT: Okay. But there is no entrapment defense

18 here. I understand that.

19 MR. SULLIVAN: No. No. That was an overstatement.

20 It -- to obtain evidence, and I understand that's a perfectly

21 legitimate government enforcement technique, but it's not like

22 this came out of the blue without context.

23 THE COURT: No. I understand that. I assumed that.

24 MR. SULLIVAN: And that's information that we would

25 be able to produce. We have a good-faith basis.

 21

1 THE COURT: So this portion will be under seal.

2 (The following ex parte discussion was held at sidebar

3 and placed under seal; Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Hill present.)

4 THE COURT: We are going to go back to the open

5 session.

6 Let me ask a question of the government based on what I

7 heard. So, with respect to Mr. -- Mr. Condrey is going to

8 testify as I understand?

9 MS. SALEM: Yes.

10 THE COURT: Mr. Fisk obviously can't?

11 MS. SALEM: Yes.

12 THE COURT: Are you planning to offer documentary

13 statements by him as sort of things that he had said whether as

14 a coconspirator under 801(d)(2)(E)?

15 THE SALEM: Mr. Fisk, you mean?

16 THE COURT: Yes.

17 MS. SALEM: There are emails that he is on that, yes,

18 we would be offering.

19 THE COURT: And would basically be under either a

20 business record theory or a coconspirator statement theory?

21 MS. SALEM: Yes, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: And, I mean, you can tell me if there is

23 anything that was a secret, although I am sure they were all

24 produced in discovery, generally, what would you anticipate the

25 facts that Mr. Fisk would have represented that you would find
 22

1 to be particularly probative of your case? I mean, what are

2 the things that he will have said in emails or otherwise that

3 you are going to argue that this helps to advance our case?

4 MS. SALEM: The parameters of the scheme as it's been

5 largely laid out in the indictment, so, you know, the idea that

6 there were regular payments, regular payments from TENEX to TLI

7 and that those payments included a bribe amount that was used

8 to pump up the amount that TENEX paid, and then, ultimately,

9 there was an agreement to make, you know, regular payments to

10 Mr. Mikerin through his offshore accounts.

11 THE COURT: So you think there is going to be

12 documents from Mr. Fisk basically laying out your theory as to

13 who was paying who and for what purpose?

14 MS. SALEM: Well, I want to be clear. I think the --

15 what we intend to do here is largely offer up Mr. Lambert's

16 participation in it, but I think there are documents -- emails

17 and other documents where Mr. Mikerin and Mr. Fisk, Mr. Condrey

18 or Mr. Mikerin and Mr. Fisk are talking where some of this is

19 laid out. There is not a letter or an email where Mr. Fisk

20 just sends something to a non- -- to somebody who is not a

21 conspirator and lays out the scheme. So he's talking to

22 Mr. Mikerin or he's talking to Mr. Condrey or Mr. Lambert or

23 whatever the story is, so we have --

24 THE COURT: So it's not just his communications with

25 Mr. Mikerin? It's also his communications with Mr. Lambert and
 23

1 Mr. Condrey?

2 MS. SALEM: Yes. Yes.

3 THE COURT: And then -- and you are going to argue

4 presumably that those communications from Mr. Fisk as part of

5 the conspiracy tell us in part sort of who was paying who and

6 why?

7 MS. SALEM: I think -- Your Honor, so I think the

8 best way to explain that is that that's not exactly right. I

9 think that our ultimate argument is going to be that Mr. Fisk

10 was a member of the conspiracy. You see that from some of

11 this, but, ultimately, he died in 2011, so -- so the whole

12 point of this is really what Mr. Lambert and Mr. Condrey were

13 doing after he died. And so the focus of what we are going to

14 be talking about is their involvement mostly after Mr. Fisk's

15 death. So we really -- aside from mentioning --

16 THE COURT: Your theory is it started before he died?

17 MS. SALEM: Correct.

18 THE COURT: And that he was one of the people that

19 helped put it together?

20 MS. SALEM: Correct.

21 THE COURT: Okay. And then I wanted to ask whether

22 Mr. -- his role with the government, Mr. Fisk's role with the

23 government, do you know that, in working with the FBI on

24 non-criminal matters, how formalized was that? Was there a --

25 for example, was he signed up in some way? Was he given

 24

1 instructions in some way about what he could or could not do?

2 I think you have said earlier, of course, he was never

3 authorized to engage in this type of bribery or whatever you

4 want to call it.

5 Was he ever instructed, for example, if you are going to

6 work with us, you can't commit crimes, you can't do this, you

7 can't do that?

8 MS. SALEM: The answer is yes. I don't know if it's

9 every time they met with them, but that is true. And Your

10 Honor, just to clarify, because I may have misunderstood you

11 earlier, if there is an overlap agent, that's for Mr. Campbell,

12 not for Mr. Fisk.

13 THE COURT: Okay.

14 MS. SALEM: Nobody who worked with Mr. Fisk was on

15 any part of -- on any criminal case.

16 THE COURT: Is it your understanding that Mr. Fisk,

17 as part of working with the FBI and only on the non-criminal

18 matters, that he was instructed that he either can't commit

19 crimes or whatever the things he couldn't do were?

20 MS. SALEM: Yes.

21 THE COURT: What types of things was he doing?

22 MS. SALEM: I think the overarching thing is you

23 not -- you know, whatever you report to us and whatever we may

24 give you in connection with your reporting, whether it's to pay

25 for a hotel to be at someplace or whatever, the fact is you are

 25

1 never authorized to commit any crime or to do anything that we

2 don't tell you you should do, so don't -- you know, don't act

3 on your own thinking you are helping us, and certainly don't

4 commit a crime.

5 THE COURT: Is there a document that says that or --

6 MS. SALEM: So, I have to think about that. I think

7 that that's the case. I just -- I don't have it in front of me

8 now.

9 THE COURT: I understand. Okay. So --

10 MS. SALEM: And Your Honor, did you want to hear from

11 us separately or --

12 THE COURT: If there is anything you want to offer

13 based on -- I mean, again, if it's a prosecution theory that

14 you think makes certain things relevant or not, obviously, I

15 will give you the same opportunity I gave Mr. Sullivan.

16 MS. SALEM: If we can come up I think just for a

17 moment or two.

18 THE COURT: Thank you.

19 (The following ex parte discussion was held at sidebar

20 and placed under seal; Mr. Salem, Ms. Sisti, and Mr. Ettinger

21 present.)

22 THE COURT: We will go back to the open session.

23 Mr. Sullivan, can you just come up here for one moment

24 just to follow-up on...

25 THE COURT: We are back in open session then.

 26

1 So, with all that exchanged, which is somewhat unwieldily

2 but I think was very helpful, and I am ready to rule on the

3 remaining motions in limine.

4 So, on what I am calling Motion in Limine No. 1 from the

5 government regarding Campbell, payments to Mikerin, and

6 Mr. Fisk, I will rule as follows, first, with respect to

7 Mr. Fisk. Based on the government's submission and a review of

8 the filings, I am satisfied that Mr. Fisk's role working for

9 the FBI was wholly unrelated to the investigation and

10 prosecution of Mr. Lambert. It did not relate to criminal

11 investigations. There is no evidence that the FBI directed his

12 role in this criminal case. And, so, the details of what

13 Mr. Fisk was involved in with the FBI on these non-criminal

14 matters is irrelevant and will be excluded.

15 The type of investigations he was involved in are

16 irrelevant and will be excluded. However, I do find some

17 relevance to the mere fact that Mr. Fisk was, during the time

18 frame of this alleged criminal activity, was working for the

19 FBI in an unrelated capacity and that he was informed that he

20 should not be committing crimes or not lying or whatever the

21 specific details of the instructions he was given were, and I

22 am convinced of that based on my ex parte discussions with

23 defense counsel. And, so, I will grant the motion in part and

24 deny it in part.

25 I will deny it to the extent that I will allow, at this

 27

1 point, argument, and then, if it can be established, evidence

2 -- actually, I think there needs to be an understanding that

3 the evidence will come in, but I will allow evidence on -- the

4 very limited evidence that Mr. Fisk was working for the FBI

5 during this time frame on an unrelated matter. We will not get

6 into what that matter was.

7 We will definitely not -- I will definitely not allow

8 anything about that it related to counterintelligence or

9 anything like that, but just it was unrelated, and that he was

10 given certain instructions on working for the FBI about

11 following certain rules, whether it was not committing crimes

12 or not lying to agents or others. And those facts -- those

13 limited facts will be admissible for the limited purpose of

14 assessing Mr. -- or allowing for arguments regarding the

15 truthfulness or the reliability of Mr. Fisk's statements, but

16 it will not be admitted to allow for any argument or inference

17 that the government was engaged in any misconduct with respect

18 to their investigation, the role of Mr. Fisk working for the

19 FBI, or that they were involved in somehow in manufacturing

20 this case or doing anything to generate this case that would be

21 improper.

22 So, again, it's admissible only for the limited purpose

23 of -- the only facts allowed are Mr. Fisk's status as someone

24 working for the FBI during this time frame and the fact that he

25 was asked to and presumably gave assurances that he would not

 28

1 commit crimes and so forth, and it's only allowed for the

2 purpose of assessing his reliability and credibility as to the

3 statements he makes, not for any other purpose, including

4 getting into types of work he did for the FBI or any argument

5 that the government was engaged in any misconduct with respect

6 to either this investigation or the unrelated matters that

7 Mr. Fisk was working on.

8 Now, in terms of that evidence, it's not clear to me that

9 there is -- what there is in that regard. I think, from what

10 Mr. Salem said, maybe a stipulation could be reached as to what

11 exactly he was told. If there is a need to -- presumably,

12 there may be documents, or if there is not a document, maybe

13 there might be a witness who could be presented on whatever

14 Mr. Fisk was told, but any testimony in that regard would have

15 to be limited to the topics I just described and nothing else.

16 And I will leave it to the parties to work out whether -- the

17 best way, if that information needs to be presented, how to

18 present it.

19 Now, as for -- and so, again, granted on that limited

20 extent. Any other use of Mr. Fisk's prior status working for

21 the FBI is excluded.

22 As for Mr. Campbell, to the extent that he had a role

23 with the FBI relating to the non-criminal investigations like

24 that involving Mr. Fisk, that is excluded right now. I don't

25 see any relevance to it. And under Rule 403, I would exclude
 29

1 it because Mr. Campbell was not a coconspirator, he was not

2 somebody who interacted with Mr. Lambert, so his prior role

3 working with the FBI on non-related matters is not relevant,

4 and it would be -- it would also be excluded under Rule 403 as

5 unduly prejudicial but also creating a confusion to the jury

6 and wasting time because it would require some additional

7 evidence to explain.

8 So the motion is granted on that issue.

9 I am also going to exclude evidence of the bribery or

10 extortion as has been variously characterized, between

11 Mr. Mikerin and Sigma, which is Mr. Campbell's company. I do

12 so for two reasons. First, I find the fact that Mr. Mikerin

13 was initially charged with extortion for his activities with

14 Sigma is not admissible. Under U.S. vs. White, 692 F.3d 235,

15 Second Circuit, 2012, there is no per se rule that charging

16 decisions are never admissible. But under cases such as U.S.

17 vs. Re, 401 F.3d 828, Seventh Circuit, 2005, charging decisions

18 often are not appropriate subjects of cross-examination and

19 argument because, as the Supreme Court observed in U.S. vs.

20 Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 1982, initial charges filed by a

21 prosecutor may not reflect the extent to which an individual is

22 legitimately subject to prosecution.

23 Here, where Mr. Mikerin was never found guilty of

24 extortion, the charging decision, even if relevant, can be

25 misleading, confusing, and would create a waste of time because

 30

1 we would have to delve into the sideshow of what the evidence

2 was in the case involving Mikerin and Sigma, whether there was,

3 in fact, some sort of extortion or not, and that would take us

4 in a direction that, at a minimum, under Rule 403, would lead

5 to exclusion.

6 More importantly, I would note that the charging decision

7 and the alleged extortion of Sigma are more broadly excluded

8 because it's effectively other acts evidence. The claim is

9 that Mr. Mikerin may have threatened Sigma and Campbell so he

10 must have done the same with TLI and Lambert. That is

11 effectively 404(b) other acts evidence, which is not limited to

12 acts of the defendant.

13 The problem with that is there has been no showing that

14 Mr. Mikerin engaged in such threats against TLI or its

15 officers. Defense counsel has not proffered any evidence of a

16 witness who would say that such threats were received. Their

17 theory of defense is largely that Mr. Lambert was aware of

18 payments but believed them to be legal or legitimate, which is

19 a different theory. So as the record stands now, the Sigma

20 bribery or extortion scheme is not sufficiently similarly to be

21 admissible under the principles of 404(b).

22 The defense, at one point, has offered a theory that the

23 alleged extortion is relevant because the government sought to

24 get Mr. Mikerin to cooperate on non-criminal matters, but when

25 he would not agree to cooperate, they then tried to charge him

 31

1 with FCPA violations and needed to find a counterpart payor of

2 the bribes in the form of TLI, Mr. Condrey, and Mr. Lambert.

3 That theory does not support admissibility here for two

4 reasons. First, the government's motivations are not at issue.

5 There is no defense, such as entrapment, that would bring their

6 motivations into play as relevant here. Second, a review of

7 the docket in the various cases shows that the theory does not

8 match with the history of these cases. Mr. Mikerin was charged

9 in a criminal complaint in July of 2014, but he was not

10 confronted with and given the opportunity to cooperate until

11 October 29, 2014. I am familiar with that interview because it

12 was a subject of a motion to suppress in the Mikerin case, and

13 there was a recording of it and testimony about it. At the

14 time of the interview, the government believed or hoped that he

15 would cooperate, and it was only at the end of that whole

16 exchange on October 29th that they realized he might not or

17 would not.

18 But the complaint against Mr. Condrey and laying out the

19 theory against TLI which at the time was a wire fraud theory

20 was signed by the magistrate judge on that same day, on October

21 29th, showing that the investigation of TLI and the development

22 of a theory of a conspiracy among TLI executives had occurred

23 and had been developed before that interview with Mr. Mikerin.

24 So I am not convinced that even if the government's motivations

25 were at issue, that any defense theory along the lines that I
 32

1 have just described would be admissible or would allow for

2 admission of evidence regarding the alleged bribery and

3 extortion scheme with Sigma.

4 And, finally, as I alluded to, even if this evidence were

5 relevant, I will exclude it under Rule 403. Injecting claims

6 of extortionate threats by Mr. Mikerin against another company

7 will confuse the jury, mislead them into believing that there

8 must have been such threats in this case when there is no

9 actual evidence of such threats at this point, and will waste

10 time by creating a trial within a trial about what actually

11 happened to Sigma.

12 So I will exclude the evidence of the bribery/extortion

13 scheme between Mr. Mikerin and Mr. Campbell, as well as the

14 original charge of Mr. Mikerin with a form of extortion under

15 the Hobbs Act.

16 However, the motion regarding Mr. Campbell will be denied

17 to the extent that he will be allowed to testify or evidence

18 will be allowed to be presented regarding his participation in

19 the TLI investigation only, the investigation of TLI, of

20 Mr. Condrey, and Mr. Lambert, and their involvement with

21 Mr. Mikerin and the payments.

22 Even though the recorded conversation that was described

23 did not lead to evidence the government could use, facts

24 showing that evidence was not found after various investigative

25 efforts aimed at gathering evidence against Mr. Lambert could

 33

1 be relevant here.

2 I am not ruling that the recording is admissible

3 necessarily or any other specific piece of evidence is

4 admissible. That would be subject to potentially other

5 evidentiary objections. But the topic of Mr. Campbell working

6 for the FBI in the investigation of TLI, Mr. Condrey, and

7 Mr. Lambert is relevant, and I find that to be a fair subject

8 in this trial.

9 Now, in testifying on these issues, consistent with what

10 I have just said, Mr. Campbell, if he testifies, would be

11 permitted to give some background information about the fact

12 that he had worked -- that he had a relationship with Mr. Fisk

13 through the interactions with Sigma on getting a contract, but

14 he's not going to be allowed to testify at this point about his

15 other involvement with the FBI other than this investigation of

16 TLI, or, as I said, about the history of the interactions

17 between Mikerin and Sigma, so we would just limit this to

18 Campbell's testimony, or any testimony about Campbell to his

19 involvement in the TLI investigation, which could include,

20 again, the fact that he agreed to cooperate and work with the

21 government on that matter.

22 Relatedly, on the issue of other payments to Mr. Mikerin,

23 the government -- the government had sought to exclude those as

24 showing an everybody's doing it theory, the defense disavowed

25 that theory at the last hearing, and so it stated that the only
 34

1 other payments it was interested in offering are payments by

2 Sigma and/or Mr. Campbell to Mr. Mikerin going into some of the

3 same bank accounts. Based on my ruling that the alleged

4 bribery/extortion scheme involving Sigma is not relevant or

5 admissible here, I will also exclude the evidence of other

6 payments made by Mr. Campbell or Sigma to Mikerin and the

7 offshore bank accounts or really any payments other than the

8 ones involved in this particular TLI-related conspiracy.

9 So that addresses that first motion.

10 On the other motions, what I'm calling Motion No. 6 from

11 the government to preclude evidence or argument concerning

12 government charging decisions, which relate to both the

13 original charging decision -- well, it relates to two issues.

14 First, the decision by Magistrate Judge Day on October 29,

15 2014, to decline to approve a criminal complaint against

16 Mr. Lambert based on the contents of the affidavit filed by

17 federal agents, and, secondly, the issue of the charges against

18 Mrs. Condrey, Carol Condrey, who was charged with wire fraud

19 and then had those charges dismissed by the government.

20 On the first issue, the Court finds that Judge Day's

21 decision not to sign a criminal complaint against Mr. Lambert

22 in 2014 will be excluded as not relevant or as a subject to

23 exclusion under Rule 403. As I stated earlier, in U.S. vs.

24 Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 1982, the Supreme Court has stated that

25 initial charges filed by a prosecutor may not reflect the

 35

1 extent to which an individual is legitimately subject to

2 prosecution.

3 The fact that approximately five years ago, and over

4 three years before the original indictment in this case, the

5 government submitted an affidavit to the Court that was deemed

6 not to have sufficient facts to establish a probable cause to

7 believe the defendant committed wire fraud is not probative on

8 whether, at the present time, or at the time of the indictment

9 in this case, the evidence was sufficient to prove, or at trial

10 now, that the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a

11 reasonable doubt that he's guilty of the crimes charged in the

12 second superseding indictment.

13 Even without knowing the full breadth of the government's

14 evidence, it's clear that the contents of the affidavit were

15 limited, do not equate to testimony that's now available to the

16 government, or the factual record is not the same, Judge Day's

17 determination at the time is not relevant to the jury's

18 decision now.

19 Even if it had some relevance, the determination would be

20 excluded under Rule 403 as unduly prejudicial and creating

21 confusion for the jury. As I noted earlier, the different time

22 frame and the amount of evidence makes that declination unduly

23 prejudicial because it would be difficult for a lay jury to

24 appreciate the different posture of the case at that time.

25 Moreover, it would be confusing for the jury to have to parse

 36

1 the differences between that determination, the grand jury's

2 indictment of the defendant, as well as the determination it

3 has to make now at trial.

4 So the probative value is substantially outweighed by the

5 danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues, and

6 would, at some point, likely require -- would likely require

7 additional evidence on what exactly was available to the

8 government at that time to evaluate that decision, and that,

9 again, would waste time by bringing in additional issues that

10 are tangential to the case.

11 The defendant did have one other theory of relevance. On

12 this, it was that Judge Day's determination establishes that

13 the government lacks sufficient evidence to prosecute

14 Mr. Lambert as of October 2014, that, as a result, the

15 cooperating witness, Mr. Condrey, recognized that by providing

16 information against Mr. Lambert, he could obtain a substantial

17 benefit. Even if that fact creates some relevance to this

18 evidence, its probative value is substantially outweighed by

19 the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion. The defendant

20 can largely gain the same benefit by eliciting the fact that at

21 the time Mr. Condrey cooperated, there were no pending charges

22 against Mr. Lambert, and, therefore, showing that his testimony

23 was necessary or helpful to establishing a case against

24 Mr. Lambert.

25 The marginal value of the additional fact that the

 37

1 government had failed in an attempt to get a criminal complaint

2 earlier would require a diversion into issues about the

3 applicable legal standards, the state of the evidence at the

4 time, what evidence was available at the time that Mr. Condrey

5 agreed to cooperate, and whether that evidence established

6 probable cause. Such a confusion and time-consuming sideshow

7 would also unnecessarily waste time. For these reasons, any

8 evidence of the declination to sign a criminal complaint

9 against Mr. Lambert by Judge Day will be excluded as irrelevant

10 and under Rule 403.

11 However, the Court will allow evidence relating to the

12 government's filing of charges, a criminal complaint against

13 Carol Condrey and its decision to dismiss those charges for the

14 limited purpose of impeachment of Daren Condrey or Carol

15 Condrey if they testify.

16 Although the government argues that charging decisions

17 are relevant, that is not the absolute rule, as I stated

18 earlier. There is no per se rule that they are never

19 admissible, under U.S. vs. White, which I referenced earlier.

20 Standing alone, the fact that Ms. Condrey was charged and that

21 the complaint was dismissed is not relevant because she's not

22 on trial and those decisions did not prove either that she was

23 guilty or not guilty of the charge of wire fraud, and, as I

24 noted above earlier, there are a variety of reasons such

25 decisions could have been made. But the charging decision

 38

1 history of Ms. Condrey is a fair subject for cross-examination

2 of Mr. Condrey, or, if she testifies, of Miss Condrey, because

3 it relates to the issue of either of those witness' bias and

4 motivation to testify favorably for the government.

5 Exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a

6 proper and important function of the constitutionally protected

7 right of cross-examination said the Supreme Court in Davis vs.

8 Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 1974. Under Hoover vs. Maryland, 714

9 F.2d 301, Fourth Circuit, 1983, Especially where the witness is

10 an accomplice of the defendant or may have some other

11 substantial reason to cooperate with the government, the

12 defendant should be permitted wide latitude in the search for

13 the witness' bias, unquote. And, therefore, a defendant must

14 be able to explore a witness' subjective understanding of his

15 arrangement with the government and his subjective motive for

16 testifying, as stated in U.S. vs. Ambers, 85 F.3d 173, Fourth

17 Circuit, 1996.

18 Although the government claims that the charging

19 decisions were entirely unconnected to Mr. Condrey and that the

20 dismissal was not motivated by a desire to convince Mr. Condrey

21 to cooperate or was not used as a means to convince him to

22 cooperate, the defense is not required to accept such

23 representations at face value. Where Ms. Condrey could have

24 been prosecuted, but the charges were dismissed shortly before

25 Mr. Condrey decided to cooperate, the defense is entitled to

 39

1 explore whether Mr. Condrey agreed to cooperate because the

2 charges against his wife were dropped or because he wanted to

3 decrease the likelihood that she would be recharged.

4 Because the defense has a good-faith basis to believe

5 that the favorable treatment of Ms. Condrey may have influenced

6 Mr. Condrey's level of cooperation with the government, I am

7 going to deny the motion and allow cross-examination of

8 Mr. Condrey on whether and how the charging decisions may have

9 colored his testimony. And if Ms. Condrey testifies, the

10 defendant may inquire whether the history of the charging

11 decisions against her -- or charges against her and the fact

12 that no additional charges have been brought may affect her

13 motivation to testify.

14 So the Court will grant the motion and exclude the

15 evidence and argument relating to the October 2014 decision not

16 to approve a criminal complaint against Mr. Lambert, but will

17 deny the motion as to the filing of a criminal complaint and

18 then a dismissal of charges against Ms. Condrey to the extent

19 that those facts may be used only in the cross-examination of

20 Mr. Condrey or Ms. Condrey on the issue of their bias and

21 motivations.

22 Finally, on what I call Motion No. 4 from the government

23 on economic extortion, and this may come up later on when we

24 discuss the jury instructions, the government seeks to preclude

25 evidence or argument that Mr. Lambert was a victim of economic

 40

1 extortion because TLI's business would have suffered had he

2 failed to make corrupt payments to Vadim Mikerin. The

3 government argues there were never any threats of economic

4 harm, and that mere economic coercion is distinct from the

5 affirmative defense of actual extortion.

6 Now, true extortion, which is -- such as compelling

7 payments under the threat of injury or death, such as has been

8 noted in case law and in legislative history, a threat to

9 destroy an oil rig with dynamite, things like that, would be a

10 defense to an FCPA violation under U.S. vs. Kozeny, 582 F.

11 Supp. 2d 535, Southern District of New York, 2008. But a

12 demand that a bribe be paid in order to gain entry to a market

13 or to obtain or maintain a contract, even at a significant

14 economic loss, is not a defense because a defendant could

15 simply walk away from that demand.

16 However, under Kozeny, evidence of economic coercion may

17 be relevant to evaluating whether a defendant had the requisite

18 corrupt or willful intent. Accordingly, the Court will deny

19 the motion on the general issue of whether any evidence of

20 economic coercion could be presented, but, at the same time,

21 based on my other rulings, I think it's unlikely that there

22 will be any evidence presented in that regard, so the legal

23 theory, I don't find to be such that there -- I would exclude

24 evidence of that type in a categorical manner, so I will deny

25 the motion for a pretrial ruling to bar any evidence of

 41

1 economic coercion.

2 I would also note that in the absence of any evidence

3 showing that Mr. Lambert actually was subjected to threats of

4 physical injury or death or a threat comparable to the

5 destruction of an oil rig or other things that would have put

6 other lives in danger, I am not planning to instruct the jury

7 that extortion is, in fact, a defense the FCPA charges. And,

8 from what I have heard, it's not really the defense theory

9 here, so I think, at this point, this is really an academic

10 ruling, but, again, I am going to deny the motion on the --

11 because I think, at least as a theoretical matter, this type of

12 evidence is relevant to intent but not to an actual defense,

13 but to the extent that there is any desire to put in any

14 evidence of that type, I would expect we would all discuss that

15 before we did that.

16 So I think that resolves the pending motions.

17 Any question about any of that?

18 MS. SALEM: Not at this time, Your Honor.

19 MR. SULLIVAN: One question, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MR. SULLIVAN: Just so that I am absolutely clear,

22 you have ruled that the reason that Mr. Lambert was not

23 arrested in October as per the ruling of Magistrate Day is not

24 admissible, but the fact that he was not arrested is

25 admissible? That's just a fact in the case.

 42

1 THE COURT: Nobody --

2 MR. SULLIVAN: That --

3 THE COURT: Nobody raised that issue as anything that

4 I needed to rule upon until just now. I mean, I think --

5 MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it dovetails with your ruling

6 that the fact that there were no pending charges against

7 Mr. Lambert could motivate the Condreys, and that's absolutely

8 correct, and the Condreys knew that Mr. Lambert was not

9 arrested as of the night of their arrest. He actually

10 travelled to their home. So I need that clarification because

11 I certainly do not want any problems in opening.

12 THE COURT: No. I understand. So, you want to be

13 able to say something along the lines of the Condreys were

14 arrested in October 2014; nothing was done with Mr. Lambert at

15 that point?

16 MR. SULLIVAN: Correct.

17 THE COURT: And, so, later on, somehow charges are

18 brought against Mr. Lambert, something along those lines?

19 MR. SULLIVAN: Something along those lines. Not

20 specifically. But certainly the fact that on the night of the

21 Condreys' arrest, Mr. Lambert was not arrested. That's

22 important.

23 THE COURT: Mr. Salem, any reaction to that? It

24 doesn't tell us whether the government was trying to charge

25 him, did charge him, or anything like that?

 43

1 MS. SALEM: Look, I understand that a sentence just

2 spoken like Mr. Sullivan spoke would seem to be totally benign,

3 but there is, you know, there is something behind it about the

4 idea that, you know, the government had to push and push people

5 to get enough evidence to charge Mr. Lambert down the road, and

6 I think that's probably where this is going, and so I can't --

7 THE COURT: That's pretty normal in these kinds of

8 cases.

9 MS. SALEM: I understand. I understand. But, you

10 know, it should seem to us that there is no relevance at the

11 time of the arrest of the Condreys that Mark Lambert has still

12 not been arrested. I mean, he gets arrested later, and that's

13 the charging decision of the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that's

14 it.

15 MR. SULLIVAN: He was never arrested.

16 MS. SALEM: Mr. Lambert was never arrested?

17 MR. SULLIVAN: That's correct.

18 THE COURT: He was summonsed in.

19 MR. SULLIVAN: He was indicted and he voluntarily

20 appeared with me. But, see, this is important, Judge. He was

21 never arrested.

22 MS. SALEM: I mean, so it sounds like the intention

23 is he was never arrested because we called up counsel and asked

24 him to come in. I mean, that's just simply not relevant.

25 MR. SULLIVAN: That's not what I am saying, of

 44

1 course. The case transpired for years before Mr. Lambert was

2 charged. He was charged in January of 2018. My argument is

3 that upon the night of their arrest, the Condreys knew that

4 Mark wasn't arrested, and things unfolded -- and I am not at

5 liberty to outline my specific theories, but the Court is on

6 track -- things unfolded to the detriment of Mr. Lambert with

7 the knowledge of the individuals who were arrested, one of whom

8 was released within three months, and days after that release,

9 the other walked in for a proffer with the U.S. Government

10 against Mr. Lambert. That's completely admissible. It goes to

11 bias. It goes to motive. It goes to currying favor with the

12 government. It goes to credibility.

13 THE COURT: Well, I did say, and I think this is

14 likely to come out anyways in the sequence, but I did say that

15 the evidence regarding the charges against Ms. Condrey,

16 Mrs. Condrey are really only, at this point, relevant for

17 purposes of assessing the credibility of the Condreys as

18 witnesses, not to argue somehow that, I don't know, that she's

19 guilty and Mr. Lambert is not or anything like that. So I

20 would have to assume that that's going to come out in the

21 testimony of Mr. Condrey, not that it's going to just be

22 offered up through other -- in other ways just as affirmative

23 evidence.

24 But assuming that, I do think it's -- I don't think it's

25 irrelevant, the sequence of events, as Mr. Sullivan has laid

 45

1 out. I -- my only hesitation is just the question of whether

2 the line is held. And I honestly want -- I mean, we haven't

3 had this trial unfold yet, so I don't know what the dynamic is

4 going to be. I think it's not unfair -- Mr. Salem's point is,

5 well, of course, these statements sound innocuous, and they

6 are, or at least there is no problem with what was said. I

7 also don't think there is any problem with an argument that

8 Mr. Condrey was charged and Mr. Lambert's charges came later

9 after Mr. Condrey began to cooperate, and that sort of affects

10 the sense of where Mr. Condrey's motivations may be. So I

11 think I will allow that.

12 I will not, again, allow any statement or even

13 insinuation that there was not enough evidence against

14 Mr. Lambert at that point and that the government had tried and

15 failed or anything like that. I think the mere temporal fact

16 that -- and, again, it really wouldn't even be whether he was

17 charged or not because that's sort of a charging decision, but

18 the fact that the Condreys were arrested on a charge at that

19 point and Mr. Lambert was not, I think that's a factual

20 statement that is okay.

21 But I would ask Mr. Sullivan to be careful not to try to

22 push that too far and try to even imply that the government

23 didn't have enough evidence at that point or had actually

24 failed in terms of its efforts with the magistrate judge.

25 MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

 46

1 THE COURT: Okay. Now, I think we have covered

2 everything we absolutely need to cover for tomorrow morning. I

3 don't -- I do have a sentencing that's supposed to start at

4 10:30, and I don't want to delay that. There are often members

5 of the public that come to those. I also understand the

6 parties have other things they want to do today, so if it's

7 okay with you, I am happy to defer the rest of our discussion

8 on jury instructions to another time. I think the only --

9 well, I mean, we can get into the details of that at some

10 point.

11 Is there anything anyone feels like we need to discuss

12 before the opening statements tomorrow and the jury selection

13 tomorrow?

14 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honor. I mentioned to

15 counsel for the government my interest and my concern relating

16 to the process of jury selection with regard to many attendees

17 appearing before you at the bench. I believe that we are

18 probably going to get a significant number of responses to many

19 of our questions. We have three at counsel table, in addition

20 to Mr. Lambert. There may be a fourth assisting us. I know

21 the government has a number of individuals as well. I

22 discussed with the government the possibility of perhaps

23 utilizing a jury room or a juror's room, and the government has

24 no objection. I just make that suggestion for the Court for

25 purposes of allowing the Court to consider it.

 47

1 THE COURT: Any view from your side?

2 MS. SALEM: Your Honor, with the three of us up there

3 and at least three lawyers from the other side, I, you know, we

4 have done it from the bench, but I have no problem if we do it

5 in the jury room. That allows us to sit down and, you know, be

6 able to do this comfortably because I know your bench is a

7 little high for writing, at least for me, so I am okay with

8 that.

9 THE COURT: Well, so, am I correct that both sides

10 would like to have all six attorneys -- I mean, as you know, we

11 have the technology where, ordinarily, the defendant doesn't

12 come up, the defendant listens on the headset, and counsel and

13 others who are part of the teams on both sides can listen in,

14 but is it the desire that everybody -- and the general rule is

15 one attorney per issue, which I will take that as one attorney

16 per juror. I think it's probably easier to have one attorney

17 doing pretty much all of it, but if you want to swap out

18 different groups so everyone gets either a break or a chance to

19 be involved, I am fine with that.

20 Ordinarily, there is not necessarily a need to have all

21 the attorneys up here. Some could be listening at the tables

22 and others up here when it's their turn, but if the parties

23 both would prefer to have everybody close enough to sort of

24 visually observe, is that what I am hearing?

25 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honor.

 48

1 MS. SALEM: Let me say I indicated to Mr. Sullivan I

2 had no objection to his request. I am indifferent. I think

3 Ms. Sisti and Mr. Ettinger are indifferent whether we do it

4 from the bench or not. That's my normal thing, obviously,

5 except with Mr. Underwood where we did it in that other room.

6 It's the judge's call. I have no objection to the request.

7 THE COURT: I think it is normal that we would do it

8 here. The two factors that are slightly different, one is the

9 number of counsel. I know the marshals sometimes have issues

10 with the jury room with a detained defendant. We don't have

11 that issue here. But I don't think I can give you a firm

12 answer right now, Mr. Sullivan, because there are some

13 logistical issues I would have to discuss with other

14 stakeholders, whether it's security, the court reporter, etc.,

15 etc. So I will take it under advisement. I don't think it

16 affects your preparation for tomorrow, so I will let you know

17 in the morning or perhaps maybe this afternoon. I am not going

18 to promise that informally as to whether that changes the

19 process.

20 MR. SULLIVAN: No rush, Your Honor. I appreciate

21 that very much.

22 Secondly, I had also addressed this with Mr. Salem,

23 obviously, Ms. Condrey was identified to us as a Brady witness.

24 We did have a recitation in the government's Brady letter about

25 their interactions with Ms. Condrey. I understand that she's

 49

1 not being called by the government and is, technically,

2 therefore, not a Jencks witness, but to the extent that she was

3 identified as a Brady witness, I submit that there may be

4 materials, particularly a 302 or such, that is material to the

5 defense consistent with their representation that she is a

6 Brady witness, and I would ask for those. I have asked for

7 those, I have been declined, and I would seek the Court's

8 assistance in that regard.

9 MR. SALEM: Your Honor, I -- you know, Ms. Condrey is

10 not a Brady witness. I mean, we had interviewed her. As we

11 read through these things as part of discovery, we felt that

12 certain statements she made may have constituted either Giglio

13 or Brady, and we provided those statements in the letter. It

14 does not make the 302 completely discoverable. We gave those

15 statements over a long time ago. We don't intend to call her,

16 as I indicated, and I don't see why we need to make any 302

17 available that doesn't either pertain to a witness who is

18 testifying or that otherwise doesn't include information that

19 they should have.

20 THE COURT: So what you are saying, though, is that

21 whether it's a 302 or other document, to the extent there were

22 statements there that, in your view, were at least arguably

23 exculpatory, those were produced, but --

24 MS. SALEM: Correct.

25 THE COURT: -- the full contents, you have yet to

 50

1 produce. Is that correct?

2 MS. SALEM: Yes. We have not produced.

3 MR. SULLIVAN: We got no documents. We have a

4 recitation in a Brady letter which purports to paraphrase or

5 summarize a couple of statements, certainly not what I would

6 consider to be comprehensive or meaningful with regard to the

7 rule in terms of material to the defense, so I would ask for

8 those materials.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Well, this is not an unusual

10 scenario with witnesses. I am going to deny the request in a

11 broad sense. My understanding of the law on this is that the

12 defense is entitled to Brady or even arguably -- maybe not --

13 it's entitled to Brady. The government often does make an

14 assessment, which is their position to do, as to what arguably

15 is Brady, and they have produced that. It's not required that

16 the 302 itself be produced so long as the information is

17 produced.

18 I suppose we could get to a point where if there is

19 something in the letter that Ms. Condrey is unwilling to admit

20 and the defense wants to offer it, we would get into that same

21 question we got into before, and, at that point, whether the

22 302 or a redacted version needs to be produced or a witness

23 needs to be produced who was in a meeting with Ms. Condrey, we

24 can cross that bridge when we get to it. But at this point, I

25 am going to leave it where it is.

 51

1 MR. SULLIVAN: Two quick things not to delay the

2 Court. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

3 MS. SALEM: Your Honor, just one last thing. We had

4 discussions after the last session with you about some

5 stipulations which the defense has agreed to, so we are

6 perfectly fine to start on Wednesday, which I think was

7 proposed to you, because we will not have a witness tomorrow

8 who must testify. I think that was what the Court had

9 indicated last time, that we could start Wednesday. My problem

10 was a witness who had to leave town, and so that's fine with

11 us.

12 THE COURT: Well, when you say you are fine with

13 that, meaning openings, or just evidence starting on Wednesday?

14 MS. SALEM: I think Mr. Sullivan had indicated that

15 they wanted to start openings on Wednesday as well, and that's

16 fine with the government.

17 THE COURT: So my issue on that was primarily, again,

18 recognizing our schedule, we have Tuesday, we have Wednesday,

19 we have only half of Thursday, we have four days next week, and

20 I think four days the following week, that everyone is

21 comfortable that, not only that we will be done, but that the

22 jury will have time to deliberate, so I am usually thinking

23 having the jury get the case no later than Thursday of the last

24 week?

25 You are all comfortable that you will be so crisp with

 52

1 your direct and cross-examination that that won't be a problem?

2 MS. SALEM: I am comfortable enough with the

3 government's case to know we will be done before that third

4 week. I just have no idea what the defense case is.

5 THE COURT: Even with the shortened week, you

6 basically have a day-and-a-half this week. It's not anywhere

7 close to a full week.

8 MS. SALEM: I understand. I think, with the

9 stipulations we anticipate, I think we will finish the second

10 week.

11 THE COURT: Okay.

12 MR. SULLIVAN: I learned long ago, Judge, that there

13 is nothing worse than a cross-examination that's not crisp and

14 to the point, so I think we will be fine. Thank you for

15 asking.

16 THE COURT: And I will remember those words as you

17 are going along. It's similar to when the lawyers say they

18 only have two questions, and they usually don't have just two

19 questions. But that's fine.

20 Well, then, how about this: Again, I know everyone --

21 well, on the one hand, I know you want to prepare for those

22 things; on the other hand, each side has three attorneys. It

23 would make sense, perhaps, to, again, assuming if we were to

24 finish the jury selection before the end of the day, which is

25 always my hope and expectation, I do prefer to try to, and I

 53

1 think it's good for everyone if there is clarity on what the

2 law is, shall we discuss the jury instructions either tomorrow

3 morning at 8:30, knowing the jury doesn't come in until 9:30,

4 and/or once the jury selection is complete if it's before 5:00,

5 is there any problem with either of those things?

6 MR. SULLIVAN: Not from the defense, Your Honor.

7 MS. SALEM: No problem, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: So we will talk about it tomorrow at

9 8:30. And any other remaining issues? Hopefully, there won't

10 be any. We will expect the jury here roughly around 9:30, so

11 we will get as far as we can on closing out what we can in

12 advance on the jury instructions, and then if we aren't done

13 yet, if the jury selection ends with sufficient time in the

14 day, we will try to finish up in the afternoon.

15 I do have the two filings from both sides. The

16 government raised an issue about one of the instructions, the

17 defense responded, so we can discuss that in the morning having

18 received those.

19 Anything else for today?

20 MR. SULLIVAN: Very briefly, Judge. I would like to

21 approach in connection with seeking the Court's assistance with

22 regard to an outstanding subpoena.

23 THE COURT: Okay. We can do that now I guess.

24 MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

25 (The following ex parte discussion was held at sidebar

 54

1 and placed under seal; Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Hill present.)

2 THE COURT: Anything else from the government?

3 MS. SALEM: No, Your Honor. Not at this time.

4 THE COURT: We will see you tomorrow morning at 8:30.

5 If there is any new issues that you think we should discuss

6 before jury selection, it would be helpful if you flagged them

7 for me between now and tomorrow so I can at least think about

8 them even if we don't do anything about it until tomorrow

9 morning.

10 Otherwise, I will expect to see you all in the morning.

11 MS. SALEM: Thank you, Your Honor.

12 MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Thank you very much.

14 (The proceedings were concluded at 10:50 a.m.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 55

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

3 I, Renee A. Ewing, an Official Court Reporter for

4 the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,

5 do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct

6 transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings taken

7 on the date and time previously stated in the above matter;

8 that the testimony of witnesses and statements of the parties

9 were correctly recorded in machine shorthand by me and

10 thereafter transcribed under my supervision with computer-aided

11 transcription to the best of my ability; and that I am neither

12 of counsel nor kin to any party in said action, nor interested

13 in the outcome thereof.

14

15
Renee A. Ewing
16
Renee A. Ewing, RPR, RMR, CRR
17 Official Court Reporter
October 29, 2019
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 1

1 30:21 4:5 AIDED [1] - 1:24 34:11, 39:15, 39:25,

415 [1] - 38:8 act [1] - 25:2 aimed [1] - 32:25 44:2, 45:7
1 [1] - 26:4 457 [2] - 29:20, 34:24 Act [1] - 32:15 Alaska [1] - 38:8 arguments [1] - 27:14
100 [1] - 14:10 acting [2] - 5:2, 5:18 allegations [1] - 14:8 arms [1] - 9:10
10:30 [1] - 46:4 5 action [1] - 55:12 alleged [7] - 8:2, 9:18, arrangement [1] -
10:50 [1] - 54:14 activities [1] - 29:13 26:18, 30:7, 30:23, 38:15
1200 [1] - 2:5 535 [1] - 40:11 activity [3] - 12:18, 32:2, 34:3 arrest [4] - 42:9,
1400 [1] - 1:20 582 [1] - 40:10 13:8, 26:18 allow [12] - 8:19, 8:23, 42:21, 43:11, 44:3
173 [1] - 38:16 5:00 [1] - 53:4 acts [3] - 30:8, 30:11, 14:17, 26:25, 27:3, arrested [14] - 41:23,
17th [1] - 2:5 30:12 27:7, 27:16, 32:1, 41:24, 42:9, 42:14,
1974 [1] - 38:8 6 actual [4] - 8:18, 32:9, 37:11, 39:7, 45:11, 42:21, 43:12, 43:15,
1982 [2] - 29:20, 34:24 40:5, 41:12 45:12 43:16, 43:21, 43:23,
6 [1] - 34:10 add [1] - 4:18 allowed [7] - 9:6, 44:4, 44:7, 45:18
1983 [1] - 38:9
6406 [1] - 1:15 addition [1] - 46:19 10:13, 27:23, 28:1, aside [1] - 23:15
1996 [1] - 38:17
663-8713 [1] - 2:6 additional [6] - 19:1, 32:17, 32:18, 33:14 assessing [3] - 27:14,
692 [1] - 29:14 29:6, 36:7, 36:9, allowing [2] - 27:14, 28:2, 44:17
2
36:25, 39:12 46:25 assessment [2] - 5:5,
20005 [1] - 1:20 7 address [1] - 18:24 allows [1] - 47:5 50:14
20036 [1] - 2:5 addressed [1] - 48:22 alluded [1] - 32:4 assistance [2] - 49:8,
714 [1] - 38:8 almost [1] - 5:16 53:21
2005 [1] - 29:17 addresses [1] - 34:9
2008 [1] - 40:11 adduce [1] - 4:23 alone [1] - 37:20 assisting [1] - 46:20
2011 [1] - 23:11 8 admissibility [1] - alternative [1] - 10:19 assume [1] - 44:20
2012 [1] - 29:15 31:3 Ambers [1] - 38:16 assumed [2] - 4:12,
800 [1] - 1:15
2014 [7] - 31:9, 31:11, admissible [16] - 8:18, AMERICA [1] - 1:5 20:23
801(d)(2)(E [1] - 21:14
34:15, 34:22, 36:14, 9:4, 10:20, 27:13, America [1] - 3:5 assuming [2] - 44:24,
828 [1] - 29:17
39:15, 42:14 27:22, 29:14, 29:16, amount [3] - 22:7, 52:23
85 [1] - 38:16
2018 [1] - 44:2 30:21, 32:1, 33:2, 22:8, 35:22 assurances [1] -
8:30 [3] - 53:3, 53:9, 27:25
2019 [2] - 1:11, 55:17 33:4, 34:5, 37:19, answer [4] - 19:20,
54:4 attempt [1] - 37:1
202 [1] - 2:6 41:24, 41:25, 44:10 24:8, 48:12
202-616-2362 [1] - admission [1] - 32:2 anticipate [2] - 21:24, attempting [1] - 9:1
1:21 9 admit [2] - 17:24, 52:9 attendees [1] - 46:16
20770 [1] - 1:16 50:19 anticipatory [1] - ATTORNEY [1] - 1:14
9:05 [1] - 1:11
235 [1] - 29:14 admitted [3] - 16:2, 11:13 attorney [3] - 47:15,
9:30 [2] - 53:3, 53:10
28 [1] - 1:11 16:5, 27:16 anyways [1] - 44:14 47:16
29 [3] - 31:11, 34:14, advance [2] - 22:3, apologize [1] - 4:14 Attorney's [1] - 43:13
55:17
A 53:12 APPEARANCES [1] - attorneys [3] - 47:10,
29th [2] - 31:16, 31:21 a.m [1] - 54:14 advisement [1] - 2:1 47:21, 52:22
2d [1] - 40:11 A.M [1] - 1:11 48:15 appeared [1] - 43:20 authorized [2] - 24:3,
ability [2] - 4:22, 55:11 affect [1] - 39:12 appearing [1] - 46:17 25:1
3 affects [2] - 45:9, applicable [1] - 37:3 automatically [1] -
able [6] - 16:14, 17:23,
48:16 appreciate [3] - 11:12, 13:1
20:25, 38:14, 42:13,
301 [3] - 1:16, 1:23, 47:6 affidavit [3] - 34:16, 35:24, 48:20 available [4] - 35:15,
38:9 absence [2] - 16:8, 35:5, 35:14 approach [5] - 7:9, 36:7, 37:4, 49:17
302 [6] - 49:4, 49:14, 41:2 afternoon [2] - 48:17, 9:3, 20:5, 20:8, Avenue [1] - 1:20
49:16, 49:21, 50:16, absolute [1] - 37:17 53:14 53:21 aware [1] - 30:17
50:22 absolutely [3] - 41:21, agent [6] - 5:18, appropriate [1] -
308 [1] - 38:8 42:7, 46:2 11:19, 19:21, 19:25, 29:18 B
344-3227 [1] - 1:23 academic [1] - 41:9 20:9, 24:11 appropriately [1] -
344-4433 [1] - 1:16 agents [5] - 17:15, 16:9 background [1] -
accept [1] - 38:22
368 [2] - 29:20, 34:24 19:7, 19:17, 27:12, approve [2] - 34:15, 33:11
accomplice [1] -
34:17 39:16 bag [1] - 18:7
38:10
4 ago [3] - 35:3, 49:15, arguably [3] - 49:22, bank [2] - 34:3, 34:7
according [2] - 12:13,
52:12 50:12, 50:14 bar [1] - 40:25
13:4
4 [1] - 39:22 agree [4] - 12:6, 14:3, argue [3] - 22:3, 23:3, based [9] - 4:4, 18:25,
accordingly [1] -
401 [1] - 29:17 14:4, 30:25 44:18 21:6, 25:13, 26:7,
40:18
403 [8] - 14:17, 28:25, agreed [4] - 33:20, argues [2] - 37:16, 26:22, 34:3, 34:16,
accounts [3] - 22:10,
29:4, 30:4, 32:5, 37:5, 39:1, 51:5 40:3 40:21
34:3, 34:7
34:23, 35:20, 37:10 agreement [1] - 22:9 argument [12] - 7:21, basis [3] - 17:11,
accuracy [1] - 12:7
404(b [2] - 9:20, 30:11 ahead [2] - 11:5, 51:2 12:9, 23:9, 27:1, 20:25, 39:4
acknowledgment [1] -
404(b) [2] - 14:13, aided [1] - 55:10 27:16, 28:4, 29:19, BEFORE [1] - 1:10
 2

began [1] - 45:9 12:14, 13:5, 13:6, 38:24, 39:2, 39:11, 39:16, 39:17 consistent [7] - 4:21,
behalf [3] - 3:10, 3:15, 13:11, 13:14, 13:23, 39:12, 39:18, 41:7, complete [1] - 53:4 8:7, 8:10, 9:5, 10:11,
13:4 13:25, 14:9, 14:19, 42:6, 42:17, 44:15, completely [5] - 12:3, 33:9, 49:5
behind [1] - 43:3 14:24, 15:13, 15:23, 45:8 12:5, 12:10, 44:10, conspiracy [8] - 12:5,
bench [6] - 7:7, 10:21, 16:17, 16:21, 16:25, charging [14] - 12:8, 49:14 12:21, 12:23, 12:25,
46:17, 47:4, 47:6, 17:1, 17:3, 17:15, 29:15, 29:17, 29:24, comprehensive [1] - 23:5, 23:10, 31:22,
48:4 18:18, 20:10, 24:11, 30:6, 34:12, 34:13, 50:6 34:8
benefit [2] - 36:17, 26:5, 28:22, 29:1, 37:16, 37:25, 38:18, COMPUTER [1] - 1:24 conspirator [1] -
36:20 30:9, 32:13, 32:16, 39:8, 39:10, 43:13, computer [1] - 55:10 22:21
benign [1] - 43:2 33:5, 33:10, 33:18, 45:17 COMPUTER-AIDED constituted [1] - 49:12
best [4] - 6:22, 23:8, 34:2, 34:6 CHUANG [1] - 1:10 [1] - 1:24 constitutionally [1] -
28:17, 55:11 Campbell's [9] - 4:23, Circuit [4] - 29:15, computer-aided [1] - 38:6
between [12] - 7:25, 7:23, 11:2, 12:6, 29:17, 38:9, 38:17 55:10 consuming [1] - 37:6
8:4, 8:24, 13:11, 13:4, 14:5, 17:4, circumstances [1] - concealed [1] - 6:6 contents [3] - 34:16,
14:15, 14:23, 17:15, 29:11, 33:18 18:23 concede [1] - 16:9 35:14, 49:25
29:10, 32:13, 33:17, capacity [1] - 26:19 civil [1] - 12:6 concern [1] - 46:15 context [2] - 14:1,
36:1, 54:7 careful [1] - 45:21 claim [1] - 30:8 concerned [1] - 7:7 20:22
beyond [2] - 15:9, Carol [3] - 34:18, claims [2] - 32:5, concerning [1] - 34:11 continue [1] - 3:18
35:10 37:13, 37:14 38:18 concerns [2] - 9:16, Continued [1] - 2:1
bias [4] - 38:3, 38:13, case [43] - 5:20, 6:5, clarification [1] - 11:6 contract [2] - 33:13,
39:20, 44:11 6:7, 6:25, 8:5, 9:18, 42:10 concluded [1] - 54:14 40:13
blue [1] - 20:22 11:9, 11:16, 12:9, clarify [2] - 6:12, 24:10 Condrey [57] - 5:1, conversation [6] -
Brady [10] - 48:23, 12:25, 13:23, 14:2, clarity [1] - 53:1 5:6, 5:11, 5:16, 5:21, 11:20, 15:12, 16:1,
48:24, 49:3, 49:6, 14:18, 15:2, 15:3, clear [4] - 22:14, 28:8, 6:1, 7:18, 8:13, 9:15, 16:11, 17:23, 32:22
49:10, 49:13, 50:4, 16:4, 16:15, 18:11, 35:14, 41:21 11:3, 11:9, 15:1, conversations [2] -
50:12, 50:13, 50:15 19:25, 20:3, 20:14, CLERK [1] - 3:4 17:6, 17:9, 20:11, 11:2, 16:5
breadth [1] - 35:13 22:1, 22:3, 24:15, client [3] - 5:1, 5:4, 21:7, 22:17, 22:22, convince [3] - 12:16,
break [1] - 47:18 25:7, 26:12, 27:20, 8:13 23:1, 23:12, 31:2, 38:20, 38:21
bribe [2] - 22:7, 40:12 30:2, 31:12, 32:8, client's [1] - 5:4 31:18, 32:20, 33:6, convinced [2] - 26:22,
bribery [4] - 24:3, 35:4, 35:9, 35:24, close [2] - 47:23, 52:7 34:18, 36:15, 36:21, 31:24
29:9, 30:20, 32:2 36:10, 36:23, 40:8, closing [1] - 53:11 37:4, 37:13, 37:14, cooperate [12] -
bribery/extortion [2] - 41:25, 44:1, 51:23, cocaine [1] - 12:21 37:15, 37:20, 38:1, 30:24, 30:25, 31:10,
32:12, 34:4 52:3, 52:4 coconspirator [3] - 38:2, 38:19, 38:20, 31:15, 33:20, 37:5,
bribes [2] - 17:19, cases [4] - 29:16, 21:14, 21:20, 29:1 38:23, 38:25, 39:1, 38:11, 38:21, 38:22,
31:2 31:7, 31:8, 43:8 coercion [4] - 40:4, 39:5, 39:8, 39:9, 38:25, 39:1, 45:9
bridge [1] - 50:24 cat [1] - 18:6 40:16, 40:20, 41:1 39:18, 39:20, 44:15, cooperated [1] - 36:21
briefly [1] - 53:20 categorical [1] - 40:24 colored [1] - 39:9 44:16, 44:21, 45:8, cooperating [2] -
bring [3] - 14:17, certain [6] - 15:8, comfortable [3] - 45:9, 48:23, 48:25, 6:19, 36:15
16:14, 31:5 25:14, 27:10, 27:11, 51:21, 51:25, 52:2 49:9, 50:19, 50:23 cooperation [1] - 39:6
bringing [2] - 4:23, 49:12 comfortably [1] - 47:6 Condrey's [2] - 39:6, correct [12] - 6:17,
36:9 certainly [6] - 4:22, commit [5] - 24:6, 45:10 6:18, 7:23, 23:17,
brings [1] - 10:9 14:11, 25:3, 42:11, 24:18, 25:1, 25:4, Condreys [7] - 42:7, 23:20, 42:8, 42:16,
42:20, 50:5 28:1 42:8, 42:13, 43:11, 43:17, 47:9, 49:24,
broad [1] - 50:11
certify [1] - 55:5 committed [1] - 35:7 44:3, 44:17, 45:18 50:1, 55:5
broadly [1] - 30:7
chance [2] - 4:19, committing [2] - Condreys' [1] - 42:21 corrected [1] - 4:14
brought [6] - 8:6,
47:18 26:20, 27:11 conference [2] - 3:7, correctly [1] - 55:9
13:5, 14:5, 16:17,
changes [1] - 48:18 commonality [1] - 3:18 corrupt [2] - 40:2,
39:12, 42:18
business [3] - 5:5, characterized [1] - 13:22 conferences [1] - 40:18
21:20, 40:1 29:10 communications [3] - 17:11 Counsel [1] - 3:3
busy [1] - 3:19 charge [7] - 30:25, 22:24, 22:25, 23:4 confronted [1] - 31:10 counsel [9] - 3:8,
32:14, 37:23, 42:24, company [5] - 5:25, confuse [1] - 32:7 26:23, 30:15, 43:23,
BY [6] - 1:14, 1:19,
42:25, 43:5, 45:18 7:23, 14:5, 29:11, confusing [2] - 29:25, 46:15, 46:19, 47:12,
1:19, 2:3, 2:4, 2:4
charged [13] - 12:21, 32:6 35:25 48:9, 55:12
14:1, 14:4, 14:22, confusion [5] - 29:5, counterintelligence
C 29:13, 31:8, 34:18,
comparable [1] - 41:4
compelled [1] - 4:25 35:21, 36:5, 36:19, [3] - 19:22, 19:24,
camera [1] - 7:7 35:11, 37:20, 44:2, 37:6 27:8
compelling [1] - 40:6
Campbell [44] - 6:15, 45:8, 45:17 connection [3] - 10:9, counterpart [1] - 31:1
complaint [12] - 12:6,
7:1, 7:21, 8:6, 8:12, charges [17] - 29:20, 24:24, 53:21 counts [2] - 14:2, 14:4
13:4, 31:9, 31:18,
9:13, 10:8, 10:12, 34:17, 34:19, 34:25, consider [2] - 46:25, couple [1] - 50:5
34:15, 34:21, 37:1,
10:13, 11:18, 12:4, 36:21, 37:12, 37:13, 50:6 course [4] - 7:1, 24:2,
37:8, 37:12, 37:21,
 3

44:1, 45:5 criminal [27] - 5:10, 35:22, 37:8 36:2, 36:12 documents [7] - 9:12,
COURT [94] - 1:1, 6:14, 6:16, 6:20, decline [1] - 34:15 detriment [1] - 44:6 12:8, 22:12, 22:16,
1:23, 3:1, 3:12, 3:17, 6:24, 19:7, 19:9, declined [1] - 49:7 develop [1] - 20:13 22:17, 28:12, 50:3
4:10, 4:12, 4:16, 5:7, 19:16, 19:18, 19:23, decrease [1] - 39:3 developed [4] - 9:5, done [7] - 19:14,
5:22, 6:10, 6:19, 7:4, 23:24, 24:15, 24:17, deemed [1] - 35:5 11:20, 17:3, 31:23 30:10, 42:14, 47:4,
7:13, 7:18, 7:20, 26:10, 26:12, 26:13, Defendant [1] - 1:9 developing [2] - 7:12, 51:21, 52:3, 53:12
7:25, 8:15, 9:7, 10:1, 26:18, 28:23, 30:24, DEFENDANT [1] - 2:2 16:23 doubt [2] - 15:9, 35:11
10:14, 10:16, 10:22, 31:9, 34:15, 34:21, defendant [14] - development [1] - dovetails [1] - 42:5
11:11, 11:21, 13:2, 37:1, 37:8, 37:12, 30:12, 35:7, 36:2, 31:21 down [2] - 43:5, 47:5
13:15, 13:19, 14:3, 39:16, 39:17 36:11, 36:19, 38:10, died [3] - 23:11, 23:13, dropped [1] - 39:2
14:23, 15:4, 15:17, crisp [3] - 3:20, 51:25, 38:12, 38:13, 39:10, 23:16 during [3] - 26:17,
16:16, 17:6, 17:13, 52:13 40:14, 40:17, 47:11, differences [1] - 36:1 27:5, 27:24
17:20, 18:1, 18:14, cross [10] - 18:1, 18:8, 47:12, 48:10 different [15] - 9:21, dynamic [1] - 45:3
18:22, 19:3, 19:15, 29:18, 38:1, 38:7, defense [40] - 4:5, 10:2, 13:22, 13:23, dynamite [1] - 40:9
19:25, 20:2, 20:4, 39:7, 39:19, 50:24, 5:13, 5:20, 6:6, 8:7, 15:2, 16:10, 18:13,
20:17, 20:23, 21:1, 52:1, 52:13
21:4, 21:10, 21:12,
8:10, 8:11, 9:3, 9:4, 19:8, 19:9, 19:12, E
cross-examination [8] 10:7, 15:5, 15:10, 30:19, 35:21, 35:24,
21:16, 21:19, 21:22, - 18:8, 29:18, 38:1, 15:19, 19:6, 20:17, 47:18, 48:8 easier [1] - 47:16
22:11, 22:24, 23:3, 38:7, 39:7, 39:19, 26:23, 30:15, 30:17, difficult [1] - 35:23 economic [8] - 39:23,
23:16, 23:18, 23:21, 52:1, 52:13 30:22, 31:5, 31:25, direct [1] - 52:1 39:25, 40:3, 40:4,
24:13, 24:16, 24:21, cross-examine [1] - 33:24, 38:22, 38:25, directed [1] - 26:11 40:14, 40:16, 40:20,
25:5, 25:9, 25:12, 18:1 39:4, 40:5, 40:10, direction [2] - 16:24, 41:1
25:18, 25:22, 25:25, CRR [2] - 1:23, 55:16 40:14, 41:7, 41:8, 30:4 Edlow [1] - 5:25
41:20, 42:1, 42:3, currying [1] - 44:11 41:12, 49:5, 50:7, directly [1] - 15:23 effectively [5] - 9:7,
42:12, 42:17, 42:23, cut [1] - 13:10 50:12, 50:20, 51:5, disavowed [1] - 33:24 9:20, 11:7, 30:8,
43:7, 43:18, 44:13, 52:4, 53:6, 53:17 30:11
discoverable [1] -
46:1, 47:1, 47:9,
D defer [1] - 46:7 49:14 efforts [4] - 11:2,
48:7, 49:20, 49:25, definitely [2] - 27:7 14:24, 32:25, 45:24
discovery [2] - 21:24,
50:9, 51:12, 51:17, danger [3] - 36:5, delay [2] - 46:4, 51:1 either [16] - 9:11, 9:17,
49:11
52:5, 52:11, 52:16, 36:19, 41:6 deliberate [1] - 51:22 11:8, 11:9, 13:24,
discuss [9] - 17:18,
53:8, 53:23, 54:2, Daren [2] - 20:14, delve [1] - 30:1 20:14, 21:19, 24:18,
20:11, 39:24, 41:14,
54:4, 54:13 37:14 demand [2] - 40:12, 28:6, 37:22, 38:3,
46:11, 48:13, 53:2,
Court [19] - 3:5, 9:6, date [1] - 55:7 40:15 47:18, 49:12, 49:17,
53:17, 54:5
20:10, 29:19, 34:20, David [1] - 3:9 demonstrate [1] - 53:2, 53:5
discussed [1] - 46:22
34:24, 35:5, 37:11, DAVID [1] - 1:14 11:18 elicit [2] - 8:19, 11:15
discussing [1] - 8:9
38:7, 39:14, 40:18, david.salem@usdoj. elicited [1] - 16:8
denied [1] - 32:16 discussion [7] -
44:5, 46:24, 46:25, gov [1] - 1:17 eliciting [1] - 36:20
deny [8] - 26:24, 11:22, 13:15, 17:14,
51:2, 51:8, 55:3, Davis [1] - 38:7 26:25, 39:7, 39:17, 21:2, 25:19, 46:7, elucidate [1] - 18:18
55:4, 55:17 Day's [3] - 34:20, 40:18, 40:24, 41:10, 53:25 email [1] - 22:19
court [2] - 10:4, 48:14 35:16, 36:12 50:10 discussions [2] - emails [3] - 21:17,
Court's [2] - 49:7, day-and-a-half [1] - Department [1] - 26:22, 51:4 22:2, 22:16
53:21 52:6 16:23 dismiss [1] - 37:13 end [3] - 7:14, 31:15,
courtroom [1] - 3:16 days [3] - 44:8, 51:19, DEPARTMENT [1] - dismissal [2] - 38:20, 52:24
cover [1] - 46:2 51:20 1:18 39:18 ends [1] - 53:13
covered [1] - 46:1 DC [2] - 1:20, 2:5 DEPUTY [1] - 3:4 dismissed [3] - 34:19, Energy [1] - 16:23
create [1] - 29:25 death [3] - 23:15, Derek [1] - 3:10 37:21, 38:24 enforcement [2] -
creates [1] - 36:17 40:7, 41:4 DEREK [1] - 1:19 6:20, 20:21
distinct [1] - 40:4
creating [3] - 29:5, debriefing [1] - 19:24 described [3] - 28:15, engage [3] - 5:17,
District [3] - 40:11,
32:10, 35:20 decide [1] - 18:5 32:1, 32:22 8:13, 24:3
55:4
credibility [10] - 5:6, decided [1] - 38:25 desire [3] - 38:20, engaged [3] - 27:17,
DISTRICT [3] - 1:1,
5:19, 6:5, 6:8, 7:9, decision [12] - 29:24, 41:13, 47:14 28:5, 30:14
1:2, 1:11
7:16, 28:2, 44:12, 30:6, 34:13, 34:14, destroy [1] - 40:9 district [2] - 12:23, entirely [1] - 38:19
44:17 34:21, 35:18, 36:8, destruction [1] - 41:5 12:24 entitled [5] - 6:8, 15:6,
crime [3] - 12:15, 37:13, 37:25, 39:15, detail [1] - 7:6 diversion [1] - 37:2 38:25, 50:12, 50:13
25:1, 25:4 43:13, 45:17 details [5] - 10:25, DIVISION [1] - 1:3 entrap [1] - 20:13
crimes [6] - 24:6, decisions [9] - 29:16, 12:19, 26:12, 26:21, docket [1] - 31:7 entrapment [2] -
24:19, 26:20, 27:11, 29:17, 34:12, 37:16, 46:9 document [3] - 25:5, 20:17, 31:5
28:1, 35:11 37:22, 37:25, 38:19, detained [1] - 48:10 28:12, 49:21 entry [1] - 40:12
Criminal [1] - 3:5 39:8, 39:11 determination [5] - documentary [1] - envelopes [1] - 13:15
CRIMINAL [1] - 1:5 declination [2] - 35:17, 35:19, 36:1, 21:12 episode [3] - 8:21,
 4

11:4, 12:1 examine [1] - 18:1 13:1, 13:6, 14:21, Fisk [46] - 5:2, 5:14, gathering [1] - 32:25
episodes [1] - 12:17 example [3] - 19:4, 16:2, 17:18, 18:8, 5:15, 6:1, 6:3, 6:13, general [2] - 40:19,
equate [1] - 35:15 23:25, 24:5 20:3, 24:25, 26:17, 6:17, 7:18, 7:19, 47:14
Especially [1] - 38:9 except [1] - 48:5 27:24, 29:12, 30:3, 12:14, 13:4, 13:9, generally [1] - 21:24
ESQUIRE [6] - 1:14, exchange [1] - 31:16 33:11, 33:20, 35:3, 13:17, 13:22, 14:6, generate [1] - 27:20
1:19, 1:19, 2:3, 2:4, exchanged [1] - 26:1 36:17, 36:20, 36:25, 14:9, 14:19, 16:22, Giglio [1] - 49:12
2:4 exclude [9] - 10:17, 37:20, 39:11, 41:7, 17:8, 18:18, 19:5, given [5] - 13:16,
essentially [1] - 17:17 28:25, 29:9, 32:5, 41:24, 41:25, 42:6, 19:6, 19:7, 21:10, 23:25, 26:21, 27:10,
establish [1] - 35:6 32:12, 33:23, 34:5, 42:20, 45:15, 45:18 21:15, 21:25, 22:12, 31:10
established [2] - 27:1, 39:14, 40:23 factors [1] - 48:8 22:17, 22:18, 22:19, good-faith [2] - 20:25,
37:5 excluded [9] - 26:14, facts [11] - 9:5, 10:7, 23:4, 23:9, 24:12, 39:4
establishes [1] - 26:16, 28:21, 28:24, 10:20, 14:8, 21:25, 24:14, 24:16, 26:6, Goodwin [2] - 29:20,
36:12 29:4, 30:7, 34:22, 27:12, 27:13, 27:23, 26:7, 26:13, 26:17, 34:24
establishing [1] - 35:20, 37:9 32:23, 35:6, 39:19 27:4, 27:18, 28:7, gory [1] - 10:25
36:23 exclusion [2] - 30:5, factual [2] - 35:16, 28:14, 28:24, 33:12 government [61] -
etc [2] - 48:14, 48:15 34:23 45:19 Fisk's [8] - 5:9, 7:8, 4:24, 4:25, 5:2, 5:10,
Ettinger [3] - 3:10, exculpatory [1] - failed [6] - 15:12, 23:14, 23:22, 26:8, 5:18, 6:7, 6:13, 6:16,
25:20, 48:3 49:23 15:15, 37:1, 40:2, 27:15, 27:23, 28:20 7:2, 7:12, 11:3,
ETTINGER [1] - 1:19 executives [1] - 31:22 45:15, 45:24 fits [1] - 10:7 11:23, 12:21, 13:8,
evaluate [1] - 36:8 existed [1] - 14:21 fair [3] - 19:1, 33:7, five [2] - 12:22, 35:3 15:7, 15:10, 18:17,
evaluating [1] - 40:17 expect [3] - 41:14, 38:1 flagged [1] - 54:6 20:21, 21:6, 23:22,
evaluation [1] - 10:12 53:10, 54:10 faith [2] - 20:25, 39:4 focus [1] - 23:13 23:23, 26:5, 27:17,
events [1] - 44:25 expectation [1] - familiar [1] - 31:11 follow [1] - 25:24 28:5, 30:23, 31:14,
evidence [65] - 4:23, 52:25 far [4] - 7:8, 18:5, follow-up [1] - 25:24 32:23, 33:21, 33:23,
8:11, 8:20, 9:16, explain [3] - 20:6, 45:22, 53:11 following [5] - 21:2, 34:11, 34:12, 34:19,
10:4, 10:13, 14:21, 23:8, 29:7 favor [1] - 44:11 25:19, 27:11, 51:20, 35:5, 35:16, 36:8,
15:1, 15:10, 15:20, explanation [1] - favorable [1] - 39:5 53:25 36:13, 37:1, 37:16,
16:22, 17:2, 20:14, 10:20 favorably [1] - 38:4 follows [1] - 26:6 38:4, 38:11, 38:15,
20:20, 26:11, 27:1, explore [2] - 38:14, FBI [22] - 6:7, 8:7, food [1] - 18:3 38:18, 39:6, 39:22,
27:3, 27:4, 28:8, 39:1 8:13, 10:10, 16:23, FOR [3] - 1:2, 1:13, 39:24, 40:3, 42:24,
29:7, 29:9, 30:1, exposure [1] - 38:5 19:21, 23:23, 24:17, 2:2 43:4, 44:12, 45:14,
30:8, 30:11, 30:15, extent [17] - 5:16, 26:9, 26:11, 26:13, force [1] - 10:5 45:22, 46:15, 46:21,
32:2, 32:4, 32:9, 7:13, 9:10, 11:5, 26:19, 27:4, 27:10, foregoing [1] - 55:5 46:22, 46:23, 49:1,
32:12, 32:17, 32:23, 14:7, 19:16, 20:12, 27:19, 27:24, 28:4, form [3] - 8:12, 31:2, 50:13, 51:16, 53:16,
32:24, 32:25, 33:3, 26:25, 28:20, 28:22, 28:21, 28:23, 29:3, 32:14 54:2
34:5, 34:11, 35:9, 29:21, 32:17, 35:1, 33:6, 33:15 formalized [1] - 23:24 Government [1] - 44:9
35:10, 35:14, 35:22, 39:18, 41:13, 49:2, FCPA [4] - 1:18, 31:1, forth [1] - 28:1 government's [13] -
36:7, 36:13, 36:18, 49:21 40:10, 41:7 four [2] - 51:19, 51:20 11:16, 11:25, 12:2,
37:3, 37:4, 37:5, extorted [1] - 7:3 federal [1] - 34:17 fourth [1] - 46:20 12:4, 14:25, 26:7,
37:8, 37:11, 39:15, extorting [1] - 9:11 felt [1] - 49:11 Fourth [2] - 38:9, 31:4, 31:24, 35:13,
39:25, 40:16, 40:19, extortion [21] - 4:24, filed [3] - 29:20, 34:16, 38:16 37:12, 48:24, 52:3
40:22, 40:24, 40:25, 8:2, 8:8, 9:19, 10:5, 34:25 frame [5] - 6:14, grand [1] - 36:1
41:2, 41:12, 41:14, 13:25, 29:10, 29:13, filing [5] - 4:3, 12:2, 26:18, 27:5, 27:24, grant [2] - 26:23,
43:5, 44:15, 44:23, 29:24, 30:3, 30:7, 12:3, 37:12, 39:17 35:22 39:14
45:13, 45:23, 51:13 30:20, 30:23, 32:3, filings [3] - 12:8, 26:8, frankly [1] - 11:13 granted [2] - 28:19,
Evidence [1] - 11:1 32:14, 39:23, 40:1, 53:15 FRAUD [1] - 1:18 29:8
evidentiary [2] - 11:6, 40:5, 40:6, 41:7 fill [1] - 5:23 fraud [4] - 31:19, great [1] - 15:21
33:5 extortionate [2] - finally [2] - 32:4, 39:22 34:18, 35:7, 37:23 GREENBELT [1] -
Ewing [4] - 1:23, 55:3, 14:20, 32:6 fine [7] - 47:19, 51:6, Friday [2] - 4:4, 4:6 1:12
55:15, 55:16 51:10, 51:12, 51:16, friendly [1] - 17:10 Greenbelt [1] - 1:16
ex [6] - 11:22, 18:16, F 52:14, 52:19 front [1] - 25:7 groups [1] - 47:18
21:2, 25:19, 26:22, fingerprints [1] - full [3] - 35:13, 49:25, guess [6] - 6:10, 7:23,
53:25 F.2d [1] - 38:9 15:18 52:7 9:15, 13:3, 13:6,
exactly [6] - 5:9, F.3d [3] - 29:14, 29:17, finish [3] - 52:9, function [1] - 38:6 53:23
14:10, 18:21, 23:8, 38:16 52:24, 53:14 guidance [1] - 3:23
28:11, 36:7 FABIO [1] - 2:4 firm [1] - 48:11 guilty [7] - 17:25,
G
examination [8] - Fabio [1] - 3:15 first [9] - 4:3, 10:10, 18:10, 29:23, 35:11,
18:8, 29:18, 38:1, face [1] - 38:23 16:17, 26:6, 29:12, gain [3] - 14:24, 36:20, 37:23, 44:19
38:7, 39:7, 39:19, facilitating [1] - 12:14 31:4, 34:9, 34:14, 40:12
52:1, 52:13 fact [29] - 4:24, 6:6, 34:20 gather [1] - 15:1
 5

informed [1] - 26:19 irrelevant [4] - 26:14, 44:7

H I
initial [2] - 29:20, 26:16, 37:9, 44:25 knows [1] - 5:16
half [2] - 51:19, 52:6 idea [5] - 9:10, 14:19, 34:25 issue [25] - 4:10, 5:20, Kozeny [2] - 40:10,
hand [3] - 8:22, 52:21, 22:5, 43:4, 52:4 injecting [1] - 32:5 6:5, 7:3, 7:22, 8:1, 40:16
52:22 identical [1] - 14:15 injury [2] - 40:7, 41:4 13:3, 13:11, 14:12,
handling [1] - 19:13 identified [2] - 48:23, innocuous [1] - 45:5 18:18, 19:6, 29:8, L
happy [3] - 7:9, 10:21, 49:3 inquire [1] - 39:10 31:4, 31:25, 33:22,
46:7 identify [1] - 3:8 insinuation [1] - 45:13 34:17, 34:20, 38:3, lack [1] - 15:9
hard [1] - 18:20 identity [1] - 20:9 instance [2] - 9:21, 39:20, 40:19, 42:3, lacks [1] - 36:13
harm [2] - 9:13, 40:4 impeachment [1] - 10:10 47:15, 48:11, 51:17, laid [3] - 22:5, 22:19,
headset [1] - 47:12 37:14 instruct [1] - 41:6 53:16 44:25
hear [2] - 20:5, 25:10 implicates [2] - 5:19, instructed [2] - 24:5, issued [1] - 4:4 LAMBERT [1] - 1:8
heard [4] - 9:9, 18:3, 6:8 24:18 issues [12] - 4:24, Lambert [49] - 3:6,
21:7, 41:8 imply [1] - 45:22 instructions [9] - 8:23, 20:7, 33:9, 3:15, 3:17, 5:17, 6:1,
hearing [2] - 33:25, important [3] - 38:6, 3:24, 24:1, 26:21, 34:13, 36:5, 36:9, 9:15, 11:3, 11:9,
47:24 42:22, 43:20 27:10, 39:24, 46:8, 37:2, 48:9, 48:13, 15:1, 17:7, 17:9,
heart [1] - 9:3 importantly [1] - 30:6 53:2, 53:12, 53:16 53:9, 54:5 20:14, 22:22, 22:25,
held [4] - 21:2, 25:19, improper [1] - 27:21 intend [3] - 11:13, items [1] - 20:15 23:12, 26:10, 29:2,
45:2, 53:25 IN [1] - 1:1 22:15, 49:15 itself [2] - 11:14, 50:16 30:10, 30:17, 31:2,
help [4] - 14:25, 18:18, inclined [6] - 8:16, intent [3] - 20:13, Ivy [1] - 1:15 32:20, 32:25, 33:7,
20:6, 20:9 8:19, 8:22, 10:15, 40:18, 41:12 34:16, 34:21, 36:14,
helped [3] - 13:5, 10:16, 10:17 intention [1] - 43:22 J 36:16, 36:22, 36:24,
13:9, 23:19 include [2] - 33:19, interacted [1] - 29:2 37:9, 39:16, 39:25,
49:18 interaction [1] - 11:7 January [1] - 44:2 41:3, 41:22, 42:7,
helpful [5] - 4:1, 8:11,
interactions [6] - 8:4, Jencks [1] - 49:2 42:8, 42:14, 42:18,
26:2, 36:23, 54:6 included [1] - 22:7
join [1] - 6:2 42:21, 43:5, 43:11,
helping [1] - 25:3 includes [1] - 8:21 8:23, 14:23, 33:13,
JR [1] - 2:4 43:16, 44:1, 44:6,
helps [1] - 22:3 including [1] - 28:3 33:16, 48:25
Judge [8] - 34:14, 44:10, 44:19, 45:14,
hereby [1] - 55:5 inconclusive [1] - interest [2] - 11:4,
34:20, 35:16, 36:12, 45:19, 46:20
heroin [1] - 12:23 15:19 46:15
37:9, 43:20, 52:12, Lambert's [2] - 22:15,
hesitation [1] - 45:1 incredibly [1] - 17:22 interested [4] - 4:22,
53:20 45:8
high [1] - 47:7 incriminating [2] - 7:11, 34:1, 55:12
JUDGE [1] - 1:11 Lambert/Fisk [1] -
Hill [3] - 3:15, 21:3, 11:15, 15:11 interview [3] - 31:11,
judge [2] - 31:20, 4:10
54:1 indicated [5] - 6:24, 31:14, 31:23
45:24 Lane [1] - 1:15
HILL [1] - 2:3 48:1, 49:16, 51:9, interviewed [1] -
judge's [1] - 48:6 large [1] - 12:17
himself [1] - 6:6 51:14 49:10
July [1] - 31:9 largely [5] - 3:22, 22:5,
hint [1] - 16:20 indicates [1] - 17:24 introduce [1] - 13:5
juror [1] - 47:16 22:15, 30:17, 36:20
hints [1] - 18:7 indicating [1] - 7:2 introduced [1] - 14:10
juror's [1] - 46:23 last [10] - 4:22, 9:8,
history [5] - 31:8, indication [1] - 16:13 investigation [13] -
jury [27] - 3:24, 6:8, 12:2, 15:5, 19:4,
33:16, 38:1, 39:10, indicted [1] - 43:19 6:20, 8:20, 15:7,
18:4, 18:5, 29:5, 33:25, 51:3, 51:4,
40:8 indictment [5] - 22:5, 19:7, 26:9, 27:18,
32:7, 35:21, 35:23, 51:9, 51:23
Hobbs [1] - 32:15 35:4, 35:8, 35:12, 28:6, 31:21, 32:19,
35:25, 39:24, 41:6, latitude [1] - 38:12
home [1] - 42:10 36:2 33:6, 33:15, 33:19
46:8, 46:12, 46:16, law [5] - 6:20, 15:25,
honestly [1] - 45:2 indifferent [2] - 48:2, investigations [5] -
46:23, 47:5, 48:10, 40:8, 50:11, 53:2
Honor [30] - 3:3, 3:9, 48:3 19:9, 19:18, 26:11,
26:15, 28:23 51:22, 51:23, 52:24, lawyers [2] - 47:3,
3:14, 4:7, 4:20, 6:18, individual [4] - 5:14,
investigative [2] - 53:2, 53:3, 53:4, 52:17
7:6, 8:8, 10:3, 11:10, 7:2, 29:21, 35:1
19:17, 32:24 53:10, 53:12, 53:13, lay [1] - 35:23
14:12, 18:20, 21:21, individuals [5] - 6:1,
involved [15] - 6:24, 54:6 laying [2] - 22:12,
23:7, 24:10, 25:10, 16:18, 19:14, 44:7,
7:1, 12:12, 12:14, jury's [3] - 5:5, 35:17, 31:18
41:18, 41:19, 45:25, 46:21
12:22, 13:23, 14:20, 36:1 lays [1] - 22:21
46:14, 47:2, 47:25, infer [1] - 9:20
17:24, 19:18, 19:23, JUSTICE [1] - 1:18 lead [3] - 17:4, 30:4,
48:20, 49:9, 51:3, inference [1] - 27:16
26:13, 26:15, 27:19, 32:23
53:6, 53:7, 54:3, influenced [1] - 39:5
54:11, 54:12 informally [1] - 48:18 34:8, 47:19 K leaders [2] - 6:3, 6:4
involvement [5] - learned [1] - 52:12
HONORABLE [1] - informant [1] - 6:7
5:10, 23:14, 32:20, kin [1] - 55:12 least [12] - 12:13,
1:10 information [14] -
33:15, 33:19 kind [1] - 18:2 14:3, 14:16, 15:6,
Hoover [1] - 38:8 6:23, 10:9, 12:24,
involving [5] - 8:20, kinds [1] - 43:7 16:10, 20:13, 41:11,
hope [1] - 52:25 12:25, 18:16, 19:2,
12:21, 28:24, 30:2, knowing [2] - 35:13, 45:6, 47:3, 47:7,
hoped [1] - 31:14 19:16, 20:10, 20:24,
34:4 53:3 49:22, 54:7
hopefully [1] - 53:9 28:17, 33:11, 36:16,
IRA [1] - 1:14 knowledge [2] - 6:22, leave [3] - 28:16,
hotel [1] - 24:25 49:18, 50:16
 6

50:25, 51:10 MARYLAND [2] - 1:2, 30:2, 30:9, 30:14, 46:14, 47:25, 48:20, 19:16, 23:24, 24:17,
led [1] - 7:3 1:12 30:24, 31:8, 31:12, 49:9, 50:3, 51:1, 26:13, 28:23, 30:24
left [1] - 19:22 Maryland [3] - 1:16, 31:23, 32:6, 32:13, 52:12, 53:6, 53:20, non-related [1] - 29:3
legal [3] - 30:18, 37:3, 38:8, 55:4 32:14, 32:21, 33:17, 53:24, 54:12 normal [3] - 43:7,
40:22 match [2] - 15:19, 33:22, 34:2, 34:6, MS [58] - 3:9, 4:7, 48:4, 48:7
legislative [1] - 40:8 31:8 40:2 4:11, 4:14, 6:18, normally [1] - 9:23
legitimate [2] - 20:21, material [2] - 49:4, million [1] - 16:4 6:22, 12:19, 13:13, note [2] - 30:6, 41:2
30:18 50:7 minds [1] - 4:24 13:18, 13:21, 14:7, noted [3] - 35:21,
legitimately [2] - materials [2] - 49:4, minimum [1] - 30:4 15:3, 15:14, 15:22, 37:24, 40:8
29:22, 35:1 50:8 minute [2] - 6:10, 16:20, 17:8, 17:17, NOTES [1] - 1:24
Leonardi [2] - 3:15, matter [7] - 3:4, 18:7, 10:22 17:21, 18:6, 18:20, nothing [11] - 8:14,
4:8 27:5, 27:6, 33:21, misconduct [2] - 18:23, 19:11, 19:20, 8:16, 11:15, 11:19,
LEONARDI [1] - 2:4 41:11, 55:7 27:17, 28:5 20:1, 20:3, 21:9, 12:10, 16:12, 18:13,
letter [7] - 6:24, 10:11, matters [10] - 3:19, mislead [1] - 32:7 21:11, 21:17, 21:21, 28:15, 42:14, 52:13
22:19, 48:24, 49:13, 5:11, 6:14, 6:16, misleading [1] - 29:25 22:4, 22:14, 23:2, noticed [1] - 4:12
50:4, 50:19 23:24, 24:18, 26:14, Miss [1] - 38:2 23:7, 23:17, 23:20, number [4] - 15:15,
level [1] - 39:6 28:6, 29:3, 30:24 mistake [1] - 4:9 24:8, 24:14, 24:20, 46:18, 46:21, 48:9
levels [1] - 7:9 mean [28] - 9:7, 9:19, misunderstood [1] - 24:22, 25:6, 25:10, numerous [1] - 17:10
liberty [1] - 44:5 10:19, 12:23, 12:24, 24:10 25:16, 41:18, 43:1, NW [2] - 1:20, 2:5
likelihood [1] - 39:3 13:14, 14:1, 14:7, moment [3] - 11:19, 43:9, 43:16, 43:22,
14:8, 14:14, 14:24, 47:2, 48:1, 49:24,
likely [3] - 36:6, 44:14 25:17, 25:23
50:2, 51:3, 51:14,
O
limine [1] - 26:3 15:15, 15:25, 16:4, MONDAY [1] - 1:11
17:21, 18:24, 21:15, months [1] - 44:8 52:2, 52:8, 53:7, objection [3] - 46:24,
Limine [1] - 26:4
21:22, 22:1, 25:13, moreover [1] - 35:25 54:3, 54:11 48:2, 48:6
limit [1] - 33:17
42:4, 43:12, 43:22, morning [14] - 3:1, must [4] - 30:10, 32:8, objections [1] - 33:5
limited [10] - 5:16,
43:24, 45:2, 46:9, 3:3, 3:12, 3:13, 3:14, 38:13, 51:8 observe [1] - 47:24
27:4, 27:13, 27:22,
28:15, 28:19, 30:11, 47:10, 49:10 3:17, 46:2, 48:17, observed [1] - 29:19
35:15, 37:14 meaning [1] - 51:13 53:3, 53:17, 54:4, N obtain [3] - 20:20,
line [1] - 45:2 meaningful [1] - 50:6 54:9, 54:10 36:16, 40:13
means [1] - 38:21 necessarily [3] - 7:11,
lines [4] - 31:25, mostly [1] - 23:14 obviously [7] - 3:25,
meant [2] - 19:4, 33:3, 47:20
42:13, 42:18, 42:19 Motion [3] - 26:4, 11:4, 12:12, 21:10,
19:15 necessary [1] - 36:23
listen [1] - 47:13 34:10, 39:22 25:14, 48:4, 48:23
meet [1] - 20:11 need [9] - 7:14, 9:23, occurred [3] - 9:19,
listening [1] - 47:21 motion [11] - 26:23,
meeting [3] - 5:1, 11:17, 28:11, 42:10, 11:1, 31:22
listens [1] - 47:12 29:8, 31:12, 32:16,
20:16, 50:23 46:2, 46:11, 47:20,
lives [1] - 41:6 34:9, 39:7, 39:14, October [9] - 31:11,
member [1] - 23:10 49:16
LLP [1] - 2:3 39:17, 40:19, 40:25, 31:16, 31:20, 34:14,
needed [2] - 31:1,
logistical [1] - 48:13 members [1] - 46:4 41:10 36:14, 39:15, 41:23,
42:4 42:14, 55:17
look [3] - 15:18, 15:20, mentioned [1] - 46:14 motions [4] - 3:23,
needs [4] - 27:2, OCTOBER [1] - 1:11
43:1 mentioning [1] - 23:15 26:3, 34:10, 41:16
28:17, 50:22, 50:23
looking [1] - 16:24 menu [1] - 20:15 motivate [1] - 42:7 OF [6] - 1:2, 1:5, 1:10,
never [12] - 16:1, 16:3,
loss [1] - 40:14 mere [3] - 26:17, 40:4, motivated [1] - 38:20 1:14, 1:18, 1:24
24:2, 25:1, 29:16,
lying [2] - 26:20, 27:12 45:15 motivation [3] - 38:4, offer [12] - 8:3, 11:8,
29:23, 37:18, 40:3,
merit [1] - 11:20 38:5, 39:13 11:13, 15:10, 15:12,
43:15, 43:16, 43:21,
met [2] - 17:9, 24:9 motivations [5] - 31:4, 18:15, 18:17, 20:6,
M 43:23
21:12, 22:15, 25:12,
might [11] - 7:13, 31:6, 31:24, 39:21,
new [1] - 54:5
machine [1] - 55:9 10:15, 12:19, 13:14, 45:10 50:20
New [2] - 1:20, 40:11 offered [2] - 30:22,
Magistrate [2] - 34:14, 16:7, 16:8, 17:3, motive [2] - 38:15,
next [1] - 51:19 44:22
41:23 17:4, 18:4, 28:13, 44:11
night [3] - 42:9, 42:20, offering [2] - 21:18,
magistrate [2] - 31:20, 31:16 move [1] - 10:18
44:3 34:1
45:24 Mikerin [49] - 5:4, moved [1] - 6:2
nil [1] - 5:16 OFFICE [1] - 1:14
maintain [1] - 40:13 6:20, 8:1, 8:4, 8:24, MR [42] - 3:13, 3:14,
NO [1] - 1:5 Office [1] - 43:13
manner [1] - 40:24 9:10, 9:13, 9:21, 4:20, 5:12, 5:24, 7:6,
12:9, 12:12, 13:6, nobody [3] - 24:14, officers [1] - 30:15
manufacturing [1] - 7:16, 7:19, 7:24, 8:6,
13:11, 13:24, 13:25, 42:1, 42:3 OFFICIAL [1] - 1:23
27:19 9:2, 9:25, 10:3,
14:6, 14:10, 14:19, non [11] - 5:10, 6:14, Official [1] - 55:3
marginal [1] - 36:25 10:15, 10:19, 11:10,
15:24, 16:13, 16:14, 19:7, 19:16, 22:20,
Mark [6] - 3:6, 3:15, 11:12, 20:8, 20:19, official [1] - 55:17
16:22, 17:18, 18:19, 23:24, 24:17, 26:13,
5:17, 43:11, 44:4 20:24, 41:19, 41:21, offshore [2] - 22:10,
22:10, 22:17, 22:18, 28:23, 29:3, 30:24
MARK [1] - 1:8 42:2, 42:5, 42:16, 34:7
22:22, 22:25, 26:5, non-criminal [9] -
market [1] - 40:12 42:19, 43:15, 43:17, often [4] - 15:19,
29:11, 29:12, 29:23, 5:10, 6:14, 19:7,
marshals [1] - 48:9 43:19, 43:25, 45:25, 29:18, 46:4, 50:13
 7

oil [2] - 40:9, 41:5 parameters [1] - 22:4 placed [3] - 21:3, primarily [1] - 51:17 put [3] - 23:19, 41:5,
on.. [1] - 25:24 paraphrase [1] - 50:4 25:20, 54:1 primary [2] - 6:3, 6:4 41:13
once [3] - 7:14, 13:21, parse [1] - 35:25 Plaintiff [1] - 1:6 principal [1] - 5:25 puts [1] - 15:19
53:4 part [17] - 4:9, 6:2, PLAINTIFF [1] - 1:13 principals [1] - 6:7
one [30] - 5:13, 6:3, 8:15, 12:4, 12:17, plan [2] - 7:10, 17:16 principles [1] - 30:21 Q
6:4, 9:2, 9:8, 9:9, 13:3, 13:11, 18:3, planning [4] - 8:3, private [1] - 5:3
9:16, 11:5, 11:25, 18:10, 23:4, 23:5, 11:8, 21:12, 41:6 probable [2] - 35:6, questions [9] - 3:25,
14:20, 15:15, 16:16, 24:15, 24:17, 26:23, plans [1] - 5:4 37:6 7:15, 8:18, 15:6,
18:8, 19:4, 19:12, 26:24, 47:13, 49:11 planted [1] - 18:9 probative [4] - 22:1, 18:2, 18:25, 46:19,
19:13, 19:21, 23:18, parte [6] - 11:22, planting [1] - 15:16 35:7, 36:4, 36:18 52:18, 52:19
25:23, 30:22, 36:11, 18:16, 21:2, 25:19, play [1] - 31:6 problem [8] - 30:13, quick [1] - 51:1
41:19, 44:7, 47:15, 26:22, 53:25 players [1] - 13:21 45:6, 45:7, 47:4,
47:16, 48:8, 51:3, participant [1] - 6:3 point [24] - 6:15, 7:17, 51:9, 52:1, 53:5, R
52:21, 53:16 participation [2] - 8:16, 8:22, 9:24, 53:7
ones [2] - 19:8, 34:8 22:16, 32:18 10:24, 23:12, 27:1, problems [1] - 42:11 raise [2] - 11:24, 15:6
open [6] - 7:10, 10:4, particular [1] - 34:8 30:22, 32:9, 33:14, PROCEEDINGS [1] - raised [2] - 42:3,
21:4, 25:22, 25:25 particularly [2] - 22:1, 36:6, 41:9, 42:15, 1:10 53:16
opening [2] - 42:11, 49:4 44:16, 45:4, 45:14, proceedings [2] - rather [1] - 14:4
46:12 parties [5] - 3:19, 45:19, 45:23, 46:10, 54:14, 55:6 Ravenscroft [4] -
openings [2] - 51:13, 28:16, 46:6, 47:22, 50:18, 50:21, 50:24, process [2] - 46:16, 5:15, 5:21, 5:22,
51:15 55:8 52:14 48:19 5:24
operative [1] - 5:3 party [1] - 55:12 pointed [2] - 4:8, produce [2] - 20:25, Re [1] - 29:17
opinions [1] - 3:25 passed [1] - 13:16 14:13 50:1 reached [1] - 28:10
opportunity [5] - pay [1] - 24:24 portion [1] - 21:1 produced [8] - 21:24, reaction [1] - 42:23
10:18, 11:24, 18:15, paying [3] - 13:25, position [2] - 18:13, 49:23, 50:2, 50:15, read [4] - 6:23, 12:5,
25:15, 31:10 22:13, 23:5 50:14 50:16, 50:17, 50:22, 13:7, 49:11
opposed [1] - 12:17 payments [17] - 13:10, possibility [1] - 46:22 50:23 readings [1] - 19:11
order [3] - 4:4, 14:18, 13:13, 18:19, 22:6, possible [1] - 3:20 proffer [1] - 44:9 ready [2] - 3:22, 26:2
40:12 22:7, 22:9, 26:5, posture [1] - 35:24 proffered [1] - 30:15 realized [1] - 31:16
ordering [1] - 18:3 30:18, 32:21, 33:22, potentially [1] - 33:4 promise [1] - 48:18 really [13] - 9:3, 12:16,
ordinarily [2] - 47:11, 34:1, 34:6, 34:7, pre [1] - 17:14 proof [2] - 15:9, 15:21 14:14, 15:25, 16:12,
47:20 40:2, 40:7 pre-discussion [1] - proper [1] - 38:6 18:4, 23:12, 23:15,
original [3] - 32:14, payor [1] - 31:1 17:14 proposed [1] - 51:7 34:7, 41:8, 41:9,
34:13, 35:4 pending [4] - 3:4, preclude [2] - 34:11, prosecute [1] - 36:13 44:16, 45:16
originally [1] - 19:22 36:21, 41:16, 42:6 39:24 prosecuted [1] - 38:24 reason [2] - 38:11,
otherwise [5] - 6:25, people [12] - 9:14, prefer [2] - 47:23, 41:22
prosecution [4] -
12:9, 22:2, 49:18, 12:22, 14:15, 14:16, 52:25 25:13, 26:10, 29:22, reasonable [2] - 15:9,
54:10 15:17, 16:5, 19:9, prejudice [2] - 36:5, 35:2 35:11
outcome [1] - 55:13 19:10, 19:12, 19:14, 36:19 prosecutor [2] - reasons [7] - 5:2,
outline [2] - 7:10, 44:5 23:18, 43:4 prejudicial [6] - 8:11, 29:21, 34:25 8:19, 15:15, 29:12,
outstanding [1] - per [5] - 29:15, 37:18, 14:16, 17:22, 29:5, 31:4, 37:7, 37:24
protected [1] - 38:6
53:22 41:23, 47:15, 47:16 35:20, 35:23 received [2] - 30:16,
prove [3] - 35:9,
outweighed [2] - 36:4, percent [1] - 14:11 preparation [1] - 53:18
35:10, 37:22
36:18 perfectly [2] - 20:20, 48:16 recharged [1] - 39:3
provide [1] - 7:6
overarching [2] - 51:6 preparations [1] - recitation [2] - 48:24,
provided [1] - 49:13
12:17, 24:22 perhaps [4] - 13:22, 3:21 50:4
providing [2] - 19:16,
overlap [2] - 19:13, 46:22, 48:17, 52:23 prepare [1] - 52:21 recognized [1] - 36:15
36:15
24:11 permitted [2] - 33:11, present [6] - 3:16, recognizing [1] -
public [1] - 46:5
overstatement [1] - 38:12 21:3, 25:21, 28:18, 51:18
pump [1] - 22:8
20:19 person [2] - 19:13, 35:8, 54:1 recollection [1] -
purports [1] - 50:4
own [3] - 5:3, 11:23, 19:21 presented [5] - 28:13, 19:11
purpose [8] - 3:6,
25:3 perspective [1] - 4:18 28:17, 32:18, 40:20, record [4] - 3:8, 21:20,
20:15, 22:13, 27:13,
pertain [1] - 49:17 40:22 30:19, 35:16
27:22, 28:2, 28:3,
recorded [3] - 11:2,
P phrase [1] - 18:25 presumably [4] - 37:14
physical [2] - 9:13, 16:18, 23:4, 27:25, 32:22, 55:9
purposes [4] - 5:12,
paid [3] - 13:24, 22:8, 41:4 28:11 recording [7] - 11:6,
19:17, 44:17, 46:25
40:12 piece [2] - 19:5, 33:3 pretrial [3] - 3:6, 3:18, 11:14, 16:1, 17:4,
pursue [4] - 5:1, 9:1,
papers [1] - 19:5 PILLSBURY [1] - 2:3 40:25 17:14, 31:13, 33:2
10:6, 10:8
parallel [2] - 9:23, PITTMAN [1] - 2:3 pretty [2] - 43:7, 47:17 recruited [1] - 8:12
pursuing [1] - 5:3
10:7 place [1] - 16:17 previously [1] - 55:7 recruiting [1] - 14:25
push [3] - 43:4, 45:22
 8

redacted [1] - 50:22 24:24 12:19, 13:13, 13:18, sentencing [1] - 46:3 40:15, 43:24
reference [1] - 19:6 representation [1] - 13:21, 14:7, 15:3, separate [12] - 5:10, Sisti [3] - 3:10, 25:20,
referenced [1] - 37:19 49:5 15:14, 15:22, 16:20, 12:5, 12:17, 12:23, 48:3
references [1] - 9:12 representations [4] - 17:8, 17:17, 17:21, 13:19, 14:14, 14:18, SISTI [1] - 1:19
reflect [2] - 29:21, 4:21, 5:15, 6:4, 18:6, 18:20, 18:23, 16:22, 16:24, 17:3, sit [1] - 47:5
34:25 38:23 19:11, 19:20, 20:1, 19:14 situation [1] - 16:11
regard [7] - 28:9, represented [1] - 20:3, 21:9, 21:11, separately [1] - 25:11 six [1] - 47:10
28:14, 40:22, 46:16, 21:25 21:15, 21:17, 21:21, sequence [2] - 44:14, slightly [1] - 48:8
49:8, 50:6, 53:22 request [3] - 48:2, 22:4, 22:14, 23:2, 44:25 socialized [1] - 17:11
regarding [9] - 8:3, 48:6, 50:10 23:7, 23:17, 23:20, services [1] - 13:8 soliciting [1] - 17:19
8:8, 8:23, 26:5, require [4] - 29:6, 24:8, 24:14, 24:20, session [4] - 21:5, someone [1] - 27:23
27:14, 32:2, 32:16, 36:6, 37:2 24:22, 25:6, 25:10, 25:22, 25:25, 51:4 someplace [1] - 24:25
32:18, 44:15 required [2] - 38:22, 25:16, 41:18, 43:1, set [3] - 13:9, 14:14, sometimes [1] - 48:9
regular [4] - 17:11, 50:15 43:9, 43:16, 43:22, 15:11 somewhat [1] - 26:1
22:6, 22:9 requisite [1] - 40:17 47:2, 48:1, 49:9, Seventh [1] - 29:17 somewhere [1] - 9:22
relate [2] - 26:10, resolves [1] - 41:16 49:24, 50:2, 51:3, several [1] - 7:9 sorry [2] - 5:24, 51:2
34:12 respect [6] - 9:19, 51:14, 52:2, 52:8, shall [1] - 53:2 sort [13] - 4:12, 5:8,
related [3] - 27:8, 12:15, 21:7, 26:6, 53:7, 54:3, 54:11 shape [1] - 8:12 9:9, 11:23, 13:8,
29:3, 34:8 27:17, 28:5 Salem [7] - 3:9, 6:12, SHAW [1] - 2:3 14:17, 17:16, 21:13,
relatedly [1] - 33:22 responded [1] - 53:17 11:25, 25:20, 28:10, shortened [1] - 52:5 23:5, 30:3, 45:9,
relates [2] - 34:13, response [1] - 16:8 42:23, 48:22 shorthand [1] - 55:9 45:17, 47:23
38:3 responses [1] - 46:18 Salem's [2] - 10:11, shortly [1] - 38:24 sought [2] - 30:23,
relating [5] - 4:23, rest [3] - 3:20, 3:23, 45:4
show [2] - 15:9, 15:20 33:23
28:23, 37:11, 39:15, 46:7 satisfied [1] - 26:8
showing [6] - 30:13, sound [1] - 45:5
46:15 result [1] - 36:14 Saturday [2] - 4:6, 4:8 31:21, 32:24, 33:24, sounds [1] - 43:22
relationship [7] - 14:6, reverse [1] - 14:13 scenario [1] - 50:10 36:22, 41:3 source [1] - 6:23
14:20, 16:13, 16:18, review [2] - 26:7, 31:6 schedule [1] - 51:18 shows [1] - 31:7 Southern [1] - 40:11
16:19, 16:21, 33:12 rig [2] - 40:9, 41:5 scheme [6] - 22:4, side [14] - 9:17, 9:18, SOUTHERN [1] - 1:3
relationships [1] - RMR [2] - 1:23, 55:16 22:21, 30:20, 32:3, 11:11, 11:25, 12:8, specific [4] - 20:15,
6:11 road [1] - 43:5 32:13, 34:4 13:20, 19:3, 19:22, 26:21, 33:3, 44:5
release [1] - 44:8 Rod [2] - 16:22, 20:12 se [2] - 29:15, 37:18 19:23, 19:24, 47:1, specifically [2] - 8:7,
released [1] - 44:8 role [8] - 19:8, 23:22, seal [5] - 20:5, 21:1, 47:3, 52:22 42:20
relevance [7] - 5:9, 26:8, 26:12, 27:18, 21:3, 25:20, 54:1 sidebar [3] - 21:2, specifics [2] - 10:21,
26:17, 28:25, 35:19, 28:22, 29:2 sealed [2] - 4:3, 12:3 25:19, 53:25 11:17
36:11, 36:17, 43:10 room [5] - 46:23, 47:5, search [1] - 38:12 sides [4] - 10:18, 47:9, spoken [1] - 43:2
relevant [27] - 5:5, 48:5, 48:10 seated [1] - 3:2 47:13, 53:15 stakeholders [1] -
5:11, 5:12, 6:1, 8:4, roughly [1] - 53:10 second [3] - 31:6, sideshow [2] - 30:1, 48:14
8:25, 10:9, 16:4, RPR [2] - 1:23, 55:16 35:12, 52:9 37:6 standards [1] - 37:3
16:9, 20:7, 25:14, Rule [8] - 10:25, Second [1] - 29:15 Sigma [28] - 7:23, 8:1, standing [1] - 37:20
29:3, 29:24, 30:23, 28:25, 29:4, 30:4, secondly [3] - 20:9, 8:2, 8:4, 8:24, 9:11, stands [1] - 30:19
31:6, 32:5, 33:1, 32:5, 34:23, 35:20, 34:17, 48:22 9:19, 10:17, 12:13, start [4] - 46:3, 51:6,
33:7, 34:4, 34:22, 37:10 secret [1] - 21:23 12:15, 13:6, 13:8, 51:9, 51:15
35:17, 37:17, 37:21, rule [8] - 26:2, 26:6, SECTION [1] - 1:18 13:11, 13:19, 14:5, started [1] - 23:16
40:17, 41:12, 43:24, 29:15, 37:17, 37:18, security [1] - 48:14 29:11, 29:14, 30:2, starting [1] - 51:13
44:16 42:4, 47:14, 50:7 see [9] - 10:23, 17:2, 30:7, 30:9, 30:19, state [1] - 37:3
reliability [2] - 27:15, ruled [2] - 10:12, 17:17, 23:10, 28:25, 32:3, 32:11, 33:13, statement [3] - 21:20,
28:2 41:22 43:20, 49:16, 54:4, 33:17, 34:2, 34:4, 45:12, 45:20
remaining [3] - 3:24, rules [1] - 27:11 54:10 34:6 statements [12] - 11:8,
26:3, 53:9 ruling [6] - 33:2, 34:3, seed [2] - 15:16, 18:9 sign [2] - 34:21, 37:8 21:13, 27:15, 28:3,
remember [1] - 52:16 40:25, 41:10, 41:23, seek [1] - 49:7 signed [2] - 23:25, 45:5, 46:12, 49:12,
Renee [4] - 1:23, 55:3, 42:5 seeking [1] - 53:21 31:20 49:13, 49:15, 49:22,
55:15, 55:16 rulings [1] - 40:21 seeks [1] - 39:24 significance [1] - 50:5, 55:8
reply [1] - 3:3 rush [1] - 48:20 seem [2] - 43:2, 43:10 11:20 STATES [5] - 1:1, 1:5,
report [1] - 24:23 selection [6] - 46:12, significant [4] - 8:9, 1:11, 1:14, 1:18
reported [1] - 55:6 46:16, 52:24, 53:4, 20:12, 40:13, 46:18
S States [3] - 3:5, 3:11,
REPORTER [1] - 1:23 53:13, 54:6 similar [2] - 14:15, 55:4
Reporter [2] - 55:3, safe [1] - 7:8 sends [1] - 22:20 52:17 status [2] - 27:23,
55:17 SALEM [62] - 1:14, sense [4] - 16:3, similarity [1] - 9:23 28:20
reporter [1] - 48:14 3:9, 3:13, 4:7, 4:11, 45:10, 50:11, 52:23 similarly [1] - 30:20 stenographically [1] -
reporting [2] - 6:23, 4:14, 6:18, 6:22, sentence [1] - 43:1 simply [3] - 11:14, 55:6
 9

STENOTYPE [1] - 16:11 21:15, 21:16, 21:19, 33:16, 33:19, 34:8

U
1:24 superseding [1] - 21:22, 22:11, 22:24, TLI's [1] - 40:1
step [2] - 11:5, 16:16 35:12 23:3, 23:16, 23:18, TLI-related [1] - 34:8 U.S [12] - 29:14, 29:16,
still [1] - 43:11 supervision [1] - 23:21, 24:13, 24:16, today [4] - 7:12, 8:9, 29:19, 29:20, 34:23,
stipulation [1] - 28:10 55:10 24:21, 25:5, 25:9, 46:6, 53:19 34:24, 37:19, 38:8,
stipulations [2] - 51:5, Supp [1] - 40:11 25:12, 25:18, 25:22, together [2] - 4:22, 38:16, 40:10, 43:13,
52:9 support [1] - 31:3 25:25, 41:20, 42:1, 23:19 44:9
story [1] - 22:23 suppose [1] - 50:18 42:3, 42:12, 42:17, Tom [1] - 3:15 ultimate [1] - 23:9
strategic [1] - 11:23 supposed [1] - 46:3 42:23, 43:7, 43:18, tomorrow [10] - 46:2, ultimately [2] - 22:8,
Street [1] - 2:5 suppress [1] - 31:12 44:13, 46:1, 47:1, 46:12, 46:13, 48:16, 23:11
strikes [1] - 12:1 Supreme [3] - 29:19, 47:9, 48:7, 49:20, 51:7, 53:2, 53:8, unconnected [1] -
subcontract [1] - 13:7 34:24, 38:7 49:25, 50:9, 51:12, 54:4, 54:7, 54:8 38:19
subject [7] - 29:22, swap [1] - 47:17 51:17, 52:5, 52:11, took [1] - 15:18 under [27] - 14:16,
31:12, 33:4, 33:7, 52:16, 53:8, 53:23, topic [2] - 8:8, 33:5 18:23, 20:5, 21:1,
54:2, 54:4, 54:13
34:22, 35:1, 38:1 T theater [1] - 5:9
topics [1] - 28:15 21:3, 21:14, 21:19,
subjected [1] - 41:3 totally [2] - 9:4, 43:2 25:20, 28:25, 29:4,
subjective [2] - 38:14, table [1] - 46:19 THEODORE [1] - 1:10 town [1] - 51:10 29:14, 29:16, 30:4,
38:15 tables [1] - 47:21 theoretical [1] - 41:11 track [2] - 10:3, 44:6 30:21, 32:5, 32:14,
subjects [1] - 29:18 taint [1] - 14:18 theories [4] - 5:13, transactions [3] - 34:23, 35:20, 37:10,
submission [1] - 26:7 tangential [1] - 36:10 9:9, 20:6, 44:5 14:15, 14:18, 15:24 37:19, 38:8, 40:7,
submit [2] - 20:13, TDC-18-0012 [1] - 1:5 theory [27] - 5:13, 8:7, transcribed [1] - 55:10 40:10, 40:16, 48:15,
49:3 TDC-18-012 [1] - 3:5 8:10, 10:1, 10:2, TRANSCRIPT [1] - 54:1, 55:10
submitted [1] - 35:5 teams [1] - 47:13 10:7, 11:16, 13:2, 1:10 understood [1] - 9:8
subpoena [1] - 53:22 technically [1] - 49:1 21:20, 22:12, 23:16, transcript [1] - 55:6 underwood [1] - 48:5
technique [1] - 20:21 25:13, 30:17, 30:19, TRANSCRIPTION [1] - unduly [3] - 29:5,
substantial [2] -
technology [1] - 47:11 30:22, 31:3, 31:7, 1:24 35:20, 35:22
36:16, 38:11
temporal [1] - 45:15 31:19, 31:22, 31:25, transcription [1] - unfair [3] - 36:5,
substantially [2] -
TENEX [2] - 22:6, 22:8 33:24, 33:25, 36:11, 55:11 36:19, 45:4
36:4, 36:18
40:23, 41:8 unfold [1] - 45:3
suffered [1] - 40:1 terms [6] - 5:20, transpired [1] - 44:1
10:11, 14:3, 28:8, thereafter [1] - 55:10 unfolded [2] - 44:4,
sufficient [5] - 35:6, travelled [1] - 42:10
45:24, 50:7 therefore [3] - 36:22, 44:6
35:9, 35:10, 36:13, treatment [1] - 39:5
testifies [3] - 33:10, 38:13, 49:2 UNIT [1] - 1:18
53:13 trial [7] - 32:10, 33:8,
38:2, 39:9 thereof [1] - 55:13 United [3] - 3:5, 3:10,
sufficiently [1] - 30:20 35:9, 36:3, 37:22,
testify [7] - 21:8, thinking [4] - 11:1, 55:4
suggestion [1] - 46:24 45:3
32:17, 33:14, 37:15, 11:5, 25:3, 51:22 UNITED [5] - 1:1, 1:5,
suggestive [1] - 11:16 tried [3] - 15:18,
38:4, 39:13, 51:8 third [1] - 52:3 1:11, 1:14, 1:18
Suite [1] - 1:15 30:25, 45:14
testifying [4] - 33:9, THOMAS [1] - 2:3 true [3] - 24:9, 40:6, unless [1] - 16:7
SULLIVAN [41] - 2:4,
38:5, 38:16, 49:18 threat [4] - 10:5, 40:7, 55:5 unlikely [1] - 40:21
3:14, 4:20, 5:12,
testimony [12] - 8:18, 40:8, 41:4 trustworthy [1] - 5:14 unnecessarily [1] -
5:24, 7:6, 7:16, 7:19,
8:19, 11:7, 28:14, threatened [1] - 30:9 truthfulness [1] - 37:7
7:24, 8:6, 9:2, 9:25,
31:13, 33:18, 35:15, threatening [2] - 9:11, 27:15 unquote [1] - 38:13
10:3, 10:15, 10:19,
11:10, 11:12, 20:8, 36:22, 39:9, 44:21, 9:13 try [8] - 3:19, 14:25, unrelated [5] - 26:9,
20:19, 20:24, 41:19, 55:8 threats [7] - 30:14, 15:11, 19:1, 45:21, 26:19, 27:5, 27:9,
41:21, 42:2, 42:5, THE [100] - 1:1, 1:2, 30:16, 32:6, 32:8, 45:22, 52:25, 53:14 28:6
42:16, 42:19, 43:15, 1:10, 1:13, 1:14, 2:2, 32:9, 40:3, 41:3 trying [3] - 9:20, unusual [1] - 50:9
43:17, 43:19, 43:25, 3:1, 3:4, 3:12, 3:17, three [6] - 35:4, 44:8, 17:13, 42:24 unwieldily [1] - 26:1
45:25, 46:14, 47:25, 4:10, 4:12, 4:16, 5:7, 46:19, 47:2, 47:3, Tuesday [1] - 51:18 unwilling [1] - 50:19
48:20, 50:3, 51:1, 5:22, 6:10, 6:19, 7:4, 52:22 up [19] - 6:25, 13:9,
turn [1] - 47:22
52:12, 53:6, 53:20, 7:13, 7:18, 7:20, throughout [1] - 6:5 15:11, 17:1, 18:5,
two [15] - 6:6, 12:9,
53:24, 54:12 7:25, 8:15, 9:7, 10:1, Thursday [2] - 51:19, 22:8, 22:15, 23:25,
12:16, 12:22, 13:19,
Sullivan [15] - 3:15, 10:14, 10:16, 10:22, 51:23 15:14, 25:17, 29:12, 25:16, 25:23, 25:24,
4:17, 7:5, 18:15, 11:11, 11:21, 13:2, time-consuming [1] - 31:3, 34:13, 48:8, 39:23, 43:23, 44:22,
20:4, 21:3, 25:15, 13:15, 13:19, 14:3, 37:6 51:1, 52:18, 53:15 47:2, 47:12, 47:21,
25:23, 43:2, 44:25, 14:23, 15:4, 15:17, TLI [24] - 6:2, 8:20, type [7] - 13:7, 13:8, 47:22, 53:14
45:21, 48:1, 48:12, 16:16, 17:6, 17:13, 9:15, 9:18, 12:13, 24:3, 26:15, 40:24, utilizing [1] - 46:23
51:14, 54:1 17:20, 18:1, 18:14, 13:5, 13:20, 14:4, 41:11, 41:14
18:22, 19:3, 19:15, 15:1, 16:21, 16:24,
summarize [1] - 50:5 types [2] - 24:21, 28:4 V
summonsed [1] - 19:25, 20:2, 20:4, 22:6, 30:10, 30:14,
43:18 20:17, 20:23, 21:1, 31:2, 31:19, 31:21, Vadim [1] - 40:2
superficial [2] - 16:1, 21:4, 21:10, 21:12, 31:22, 32:19, 33:6, value [5] - 3:25, 36:4,
 10

36:18, 36:25, 38:23 WINTHROP [1] - 2:3

VANESSA [1] - 1:19 wire [9] - 4:25, 8:13,
Vanessa [1] - 3:10 8:21, 10:13, 16:6,
variety [1] - 37:24 31:19, 34:18, 35:7,
various [2] - 31:7, 37:23
32:24 wired [2] - 6:25, 17:1
variously [1] - 29:10 witness [15] - 11:8,
version [1] - 50:22 19:25, 28:13, 30:16,
victim [1] - 39:25 36:15, 38:9, 48:23,
view [4] - 12:4, 15:6, 49:2, 49:3, 49:6,
47:1, 49:22 49:10, 49:17, 50:22,
violation [1] - 40:10 51:7, 51:10
violations [1] - 31:1 witness' [4] - 38:3,
violence [1] - 10:5 38:5, 38:13, 38:14
visually [1] - 47:24 witnesses [3] - 44:18,
voluntarily [1] - 43:19 50:10, 55:8
vs [10] - 3:5, 29:14, words [1] - 52:16
29:17, 29:19, 34:23, worse [1] - 52:13
37:19, 38:7, 38:8, writing [1] - 47:7
38:16, 40:10
Y
W
years [3] - 35:3, 35:4,
wait [1] - 6:10 44:1
walk [1] - 40:15 York [2] - 1:20, 40:11
walked [1] - 44:9 yourselves [1] - 3:8
wants [2] - 18:17,
50:20
Washington [2] -
1:20, 2:5
waste [4] - 29:25,
32:9, 36:9, 37:7
wasting [1] - 29:6
ways [1] - 44:22
wear [2] - 4:25, 8:13
wearing [2] - 10:13,
16:6
Wednesday [5] - 51:6,
51:9, 51:13, 51:15,
51:18
week [8] - 51:19,
51:20, 51:24, 52:4,
52:5, 52:6, 52:7,
52:10
whatsoever [3] - 5:17,
11:15, 11:17
white [1] - 29:14
White [1] - 37:19
whole [4] - 12:1,
13:15, 23:11, 31:15
wholly [1] - 26:9
wide [1] - 38:12
wife [1] - 39:2
willful [1] - 40:18
WILLIAM [1] - 2:4
William [1] - 3:14
william.sullivan@
pillsburylaw.com [1]
- 2:6
willing [1] - 17:1