US V Sigelman Trial Transcript

1543
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
5
Plaintiffs
6
7
vs.
NO. CRIM. 14-263
JOSEPH SIGELMAN,
12
Defendant.
______________________________
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA
4TH AND COOPER STREETS
CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08101
JUNE 11, 2015
13
B E F O R E:
10
11
THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
A P P E A R A N C E S:
15
16
17
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

BY: PATRICK STOKES, ESQUIRE
ZACH INTRATER, ESQUIRE
TAREK HELOU, ESQUIRE
For the Government
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP

BY: PATRICK J. EGAN, ESQUIRE
- And QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
BY: WILLIAM BURCK, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM PRICE, ESQUIRE
JUAN MORILLO, ESQUIRE
BEN O'NEIL, ESQUIRE
VERONICA YEPEZ, ESQUIRE
Counsel for Defendant
Certified as true and correct as required by
Title 28, U.S.C., Section 753.
/S/ Karen Friedlander, CRR, RMR
United States District Court

Camden, New Jersey
1544
1
2
W I T N E S S
I N D E X
WITNESS
PAGE
GREGORY S. WEISMAN
CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GREGORY S. WEISMAN BY
MR. PRICE:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Camden, New Jersey
1558
1545
E X H I B I T
I N D E X
2
3
4
EXHIBIT NUMBER
PAGE
5
6
DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR
IDENTIFICATION
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Camden, New Jersey
1567
1546
(OPEN COURT, June 11, 2015, 8:08 a.m.)
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
THE COURT:
All rise.
Good morning.
Everybody, please be
seated.
Each one wants to put in the December 15th transcript parts
that they think favor one side.
them out and put in what they think favors them.
gotten so blatant that that's what you were both doing, one or
the other of you might have gotten away with it, but neither
10
11
Well, we are continuing the battle of both sides.
The other side wants to keep

If it hadn't
of you are going to get away with it.

And, government, if you give me a transcript of the
12
things you want out, don't you think you could give me an
13
index and put some page and line and things, than make me go
14
through a hundred pages?
15
MR. INTRATER:
16
apologize.
17
that you wanted out.
18
19
I'm sorry, Judge, I thought -- I
I thought you had asked for the parts highlighted
THE COURT:
I wanted highlight, but if you gave me
page or --
20
MR. INTRATER:
21
THE COURT:
Sorry, Judge.
Well, anyway, I'm going to make two
22
rulings about this transcript, maybe more than two.
23
I'm going to take out Page 1, Line 1, through Page 5, Line 14,
24
because those are conversations in which Sigelman is not even
25
part of.
No. 1,
This is a reception, coming up, you know, really,

Camden, New Jersey
1547
but everything where the two of them are together.
denying the motion as to all the rest of them.
I'm
How these two people interacted, the subtleties of body
language and everything, I think the jury is entitled to see,
and I'm going to let -- I'm going to let it in.
No. 2, Mr. Price, I'm not going to let you just play
the tape now on the guise that you are cross-examining
Weisman.
evidence again.
That's not cross-examining.

You can't do that.
You're just playing the

I'm not going to allow
10
it.
11
cross-examining Weisman, you've cross-examined him on all
12
kinds of things on the tape.
13
play the tape.
14
going to admit it in evidence, and if the jury wants to listen
15
to it and play the whole tape, we're going to make
16
arrangements so they can to do that.
17
here, take a peek -- no more than I would take a document and
18
let you read the whole document.
19
You've had now two or two and-a-half days of
I'm not going to let you just
In effect, you've offered it in evidence, I'm
But I'm not going to sit
This is cross-examination, and I'm not going to -- I'm
20
not going to just let you play a bit of evidence once again.
21
As I say, if there's particular sentences -- if there's
22
particular parts that you want to really cross-examine on,
23
that's different.
24
actually crossed on many things.
But if there are things you
25
haven't done yet, you can do it.
But not just play the whole
But you've done that already, you've

Camden, New Jersey
1548
tape.
I'm not going to allow that.
You got that?
MR. PRICE:
I understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
You don't agree, but you understand that?
MR. PRICE:
I hear you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
You got 60 seconds.
MR. PRICE:
It's this.
What is it you want
to say?
It's impossible to
cross-examine him on his perception of Mr. Sigelman's
demeanor.
10
THE COURT:
Oh, I'm --
11
MR. PRICE:
And --
12
THE COURT:
Why is that?
13
14
People -- people give
testimony about somebody else's demeanor all the time.

MR. PRICE:
Well, the way to impeach him is to say,
15
you say his demeanor was nervous and that he was tense and, et
16
cetera, the only way to impeach him on that --
17
THE COURT:
Well, maybe he's telling the truth.
You
18
know, every witness you're cross-examining can't necessarily
19
be impeached.
20
21
22
MR. PRICE:
Well, he can be impeached, if the jury
sees the entire tape -THE COURT:
Oh, they will see the tape.
If they want
23
to look at the tape, they can look at it.
24
in the middle -- now, if there's some particular segment you
25
want to a play and ask a question on, that's
Sitting here just

Camden, New Jersey
1549
cross-examination.
Playing the whole thing is not
cross-examination.
I've been very generous with you.
given you -- I mean, we've been two, three days just on cross.
As I say, if there's pieces of questions you want to ask, on a
particular segment of the tape, that's one thing.
cross-examination.
I've
That's
Just playing the whole tape for two and-a-half hours,
or however long it is, is just like -- it's like taking one of
these 10-, 20-page documents and reading it, you know.
Even
10
though the document will go into evidence and the jury can see
11
it, if they want to -- and that's the way I feel about this.
12
This is -- I'm just not going to let you sit here and play it.
13
If you want to really cross-examine, and there's something
14
that you haven't yet cross-examined on, so be it, you can
15
cross on it.
16
MR. PRICE:
For -- I'm sorry, I don't want to
17
interrupt.
18
we did not -- we did not play excerpts for completeness during
19
the direct because we -- we knew we were going to get that
20
opportunity.
21
did not play?
22
For completeness of what has been played, because
For completeness, can we play the excerpts they
THE COURT:
No.
This is cross-examination -- you
23
want to put Sigelman on the stand and then play the tape and
24
ask him a bunch of questions, or play the whole thing and ask
25
him questions, that's one thing.
That's part of your direct

Camden, New Jersey
1550
case.
let you just play, for two and-a-half hours play the tape.
I'm just not going to allow it.
This is cross-examination, and I'm simply not going to
MR. PRICE:
And I'm asking for something smaller than
that.
impression that Mr. Sigelman said, I'm going to go, and it
continues with their conversing after that.
For example, they stopped the tape to leave the
THE COURT:
that, question him about it.
10
11
MR. PRICE:
Well, if you want to question him about
And then, I assume I'd be able to play
the tape --
12
THE COURT:
You'll play eight lines of the tape or
13
whatever is needed for the question.
14
cross-examination.
15
in.
Mr. Price, this is
This is not the chance to put your case
You'll get that chance, if you want to.
16
Well, that's my ruling on that.
17
My second -- oh, somebody brought me Starbucks.
18
My second ruling is this, I got a motion this morning,
Good.
19
it's to strike certain testimony of Gregory Weisman, and it
20
really encompasses two kinds of things.
21
question was asked or many -- several times, you know, was JS,
22
was Joseph Sigelman telling the truth, and the witness would
23
say no, you know, that's one type of question.
24
25
Is one, when a
The other type of question was what something meant,

you know, what do you think Sigelman was referring to when he

Camden, New Jersey
1551
1
2
said such and such.
Generally fall on those two categories.
I absolutely agree that a witness can't get on the
stand and say, in my opinion, he's telling the truth.
vouching.
this is a little different.
for a witness to get on the stand and say, yeah, I think he
was telling the truth.
him whether you think he was truthful or not, it was really an
in-artful way of asking the question, but you're really asking
That's
A lawyer can't do it, a witness can't do it.
But
It's one thing for somebody --
But it's another thing when you ask
10
him about something he knows about, about an interaction, a
11
set of facts that he knows about, and that's different.
12
That's not basing, you know, whether you got a
13
reputation for truthfulness or not, or in your opinion he's an
14
honest guy.
15
text, it's very clear, that when he says, he wasn't telling
16
the truth, in the instances where I let it in, he was really
17
asking him to give his version of an interaction they both
18
had, and so to the extent -- I'm denying that motion.
19
That's testimony, and you can read it in the
Now, I -- and I really have the same point as to the
20
other point, you know, when he said, what does this mean, what
21
does that mean.
22
interacted in the past, and I don't, you know -- I think
23
that's proper.
24
one of the participants in the conversation, what do you think
25
he meant when he said, the meeting we had at Christmastime --
That's based on the fact that these two
I think when somebody -- that -- when you ask

Camden, New Jersey
1552
he says, oh, that was the meeting we had at such -- but that's
based on their -- his personal knowledge.
speculation as to what somebody made.
It's not kind of
Now, sometimes that's a hard line to draw, when one is
speculation and both of those is.
up to the Circuit.
me reversed.
me reversed, you two are, so --
MR. INTRATER:
I tried my best.
Take it
In 23 years, you may be the first to get
What can I say?
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. INTRATER:
12
THE COURT:
If anybody is qualified to get
Judge, just the two of them?
What?
What about the other seven?
Well, you know, it's what President
13
Kennedy said when he was addressing a group of Nobel laureates
14
who were having breakfast together.
15
giving them a speech of some kind.
16
been such an agglomeration of talent in one room, except when
17
Thomas Jefferson had breakfast by himself.
18
He said, never has there
(Laughter.)
19
20
He was addressing them,
THE COURT:
So, I look at them.
This is like John
Adams and Thomas Jefferson having breakfast.
21
MR. INTRATER:
22
THE COURT:
Fair enough.
So, I am going to admit -- I mean, in a
23
sense, by asking me to play it, he's moving to have this tape
24
in.
25
going to offer the jury a chance to listen to the whole thing.
I'm going to admit it, the whole thing.
I'm certainly

Camden, New Jersey
1553
I'm going to provide whatever means of playback.
MR. INTRATER:
Not -- I don't want to have to make
their point for them, but just subject to all of the -- your
other rulings with respect to everything regarding the Vesga
meeting.
So we have to redact out all that Vesga stuff.
THE COURT:
MR. INTRATER:
THE COURT:
All right.
If I -- if that's -- if it conforms with
the ruling I make.
10
MR. INTRATER:
11
THE COURT:
12
13
Just so the record's clear, right?
Yep.
I want somebody to prepare, as I said --
it has a number already, doesn't it?

MR. INTRATER:
Well, Judge, it's -- for
14
identification, we marked it as 900 of the video and 901 as
15
the transcript, but we're working on it and --
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. INTRATER:
18
19
Okay.
-- we will give you -- we'll give you
the proper thing.

THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm going to today admit the whole
20
-- subject to whatever, like, the redaction I made in the
21
first five pages.
22
MR. INTRATER:
23
THE COURT:
Right.
I'm going to admit the whole thing.
24
again, I think that my -- that how they interact is very
25
important in the jury evaluating.
And
You know, again, this is

Camden, New Jersey
1554
not two strangers.
street, you know, and speaking to somebody he's never seen
before.
different companies, in effect.
Tiger association, they had a PetroTiger association and then
the follow-up guy.
This is not a guy who's walking in the
These are two people who were, well, it was three
MR. INTRATER:
THE COURT:
MR. INTRATER:
It was -- they had Office
AGP.
AGP, or something like that.

Yes, Judge.
10
THE COURT:
Okay.
11
MR. PRICE:
Your Honor, we have -- for what goes to
12
the jury, we don't have an objection to taking out that first
13
part.
14
THE COURT:
Yeah.
15
MR. PRICE:
Where -- because they're driving around
16
and things like that.
17
get to -- we get to use it in closing.
18
THE COURT:
I assume that if it's in evidence, we
Oh, absolutely.
You can use it in
19
closing.
20
cross to take a document and read the whole document, even
21
though the witness has only been crossed on, you know, some
22
narrow point.
23
argument, not cross-examination, argument, you can use it any
24
way, any legal way you can.
25
I mean, it's just like one thing in the guise of
But once it's in evidence, you can -- in
Absolutely.
As I say, I will make known to the jury that you will

Camden, New Jersey
1555
provide them with the mechanical, whatever you want -- the
electronics necessary to hear it and see it.
to bring them out here and let them see it on -- I mean, I
don't know what I can do, but -- because I don't know the
electronics at this point, but we'll solve that by the end of
this case, as to what we have to do.
Even if I have
I mean, I feel very, very strongly, subject to the
rulings I've made, that they should see as much of this
interaction as they can.
Because I think there's subtleties.
10
I mean, I know I'm always amazed at what juries pick up that
11
even lawyers don't pick up or the judge doesn't pick up.
12
On the other hand, cross-examination is
13
cross-examination.
14
evidence that you like and put it in so the jury can hear it
15
an extra time.
16
document that you would cross-examine on four lines of and
17
then just read the whole thing to the jury, in the guise that
18
you're cross-examining.
19
It's not a time to, in effect, take some
As I say, no more than if you took a 20-page
Can't do that.
On the other hand, closing argument, if it's in
20
evidence and you see something in there that you think is
21
dynamite, you know, to your case, or not even dynamite, you
22
just think is relevant to your case, you can use it.
23
all the time.
24
25
So now I think that covers it.

outstanding other than that?
Do it
Do we have anything
-- oh, juror No. 1, remember,

Camden, New Jersey
1556
she said her mother had gone to the hospital?
2
3
THE DEPUTY CLERK:

part with him.
4
5
THE COURT:
I know we had been told that her mother
died, just died, and --
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
THE COURT:
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
I don't know if we shared that
I don't think that's happened.
What?
The message I got this morning is
that the mother is still in the hospital and still not doing
10
well but has -- the stress of dealing with that and, I guess,
11
coming here or not has made the juror herself sick and she
12
won't be able to make it today, and wasn't sure about in the
13
future.
14
THE COURT:
I just think that's -- I just think
15
that's a lot of -- a lot of baggage for the juror.
16
propose to dismiss her -- she's not here, but, I mean, to
17
dismiss her and take the first of the four alternates, whoever
18
that is, and put them in seat No. 1.
19
MR. BURCK:
20
MR. STOKES:
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. INTRATER:
23
RESPONSE:
24
THE COURT:
25
So I
No problem, Your Honor.

No objection.
Everything okay with that?
Yes, Your Honor.
Yes, Your Honor.

Okay.
So we will do that.
Now, actually, I take it back.
Don't put her in seat

Camden, New Jersey
1557
No. 1, put her in seat No. 12.
ones up one.
In other words, move the other
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
Okay.
THE COURT:
No, there's a reason for that.
Okay?
Over the years, I have done two different contrary things when
it comes to selecting a foreperson.
majority of them, I just take juror No. 1.
case -- and I know the argument goes both ways, I just send
them into elect who they want, and I use both of those at
10
In many cases, maybe the

And in the other
various times.
11
And I'm going to give you, both sides, a lot of input
12
on this issue and so -- and for some reason, you both agree to
13
do it, or I rule that juror No. 1 should be the foreman.
14
shouldn't be the last alternate, it should be -- or the first
15
alternate, it should be -- juror No. 2 should become juror No.
16
1.
17
question of the way I instruct them to pick a foreperson.
18
As I say, I've used both of them, and since I have
19
rarely, if ever, I can't even think of a case, had a hung
20
jury, both ways have worked.
21
It
So it's not the question of musical chairs, it's just a
Okay.
All right.
22
MR. STOKES:
23
THE COURT:
So, you know, that's that.
We still have -- anything else?
Not from the government, Your Honor.

Okay.
Well, all right.
But please,
24
somewhere along the line, let's get this in evidence -- I
25
mean, it's in evidence, but subject to the redactions that --

Camden, New Jersey
1558
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE
1
2
MR. STOKES:
that with the defense.
3
4
We will have no problems taking care of
THE COURT:
That won't be a problem, Your Honor.
Okay.
All right.
Weisman at the appointed hour.
(RECESS TAKEN; 8:25 a.m.)
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
(JURY ENTERS; 8:37 a.m.)
(OPEN COURT; 8:39 a.m.)
THE COURT:
10
11
We'll resume with Mr.
All rise.
Good morning, everybody.
Please be
seated.
Ladies and gentlemen, before we start, I'm sure you
12
observed that juror No. 1 is not here.
13
Her mother is grievously ill in the hospital, very, very ill,
14
and I know we all wish both her and her mother whatever good
15
can come out of this.
16
thought under the circumstances, that's why we have
17
alternates.
18
the hospital, so that explains why.
19
knew that already, but that explains why we impaneled, now,
20
one of the alternates.
21
Okay.
Has been replaced.
We all wish them the best.
But I
It was only fair to let her be with her mother in

I think you probably all
Mr. Price.
22
MR. PRICE:
Good morning, Mr. Weisman --
23
THE COURT:
And Mr. Weisman, you're still under oath.
24
THE WITNESS:
25
Yes, Your Honor.
(CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GREGORY S. WEISMAN BY MR.

Camden, New Jersey
1559
PRICE:)
Q.
gentlemen.
A.
Good morning.
Q.
Mr. Weisman, it is not true that anyone at the government
told you to continue working at AGP after you began
cooperating with the government, correct?
A.
how long that was for.
Good morning.
Good morning, Your Honor, ladies and
I believe for the initial period of time, I'm not certain
10
THE COURT:
Well, how long did you work for AG --
11
MR. PRICE:
AGP.
12
THE COURT:
After December 15th?
13
THE WITNESS:
14
THE COURT:
So you worked with them for three months.
15
MR. PRICE:
Over three months, three months.
16
THE COURT:
Three months, you were functioning as
I believe it was until March or April.
17
general counsel of a company that was controlled and dominated
18
by Joseph Sigelman.
19
20
21
22
23
THE WITNESS:
And there were other shareholders.
don't think he had majority of the company.

THE COURT:
But he was -- he was the CEO, the driving
force behind that company.

THE WITNESS:
Yes, I don't believe -- I don't know
24
whether he was -- had the title of CEO, but he was, yes, the
25
main -- he was -- yeah, the main person behind the company.

Camden, New Jersey
1560
BY MR. PRICE:
Q.
was a government official who told you to stay, continue
working at AGP.
A.
a short period of time they said I should remain there, or if
they left it up to me.
Q.
whether you were instructed to stay there, at all, okay?
Now, Mr. Weisman, a couple days ago you said that there
That is not true, is it?
I think I may have misspoken.
I can't remember if it was
I don't recall.
No, I'm dividing it.
First I'm going to talk about

You
10
said previously that the government official told you you
11
should continue working at AGP.
12
is it?
13
A.
I'm not sure.
14
Q.
But that is, in fact, what you told the jury under oath
15
two days ago, correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
So what you said to the jury two days ago under oath was
18
false, correct?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And you told the jury a couple days ago that there was a
21
government official who told you when you should leave.
22
you remember that?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And that statement, that a government official told you
25
when you should leave, that statement that you made under oath
That statement is not true,
I don't recall.

Camden, New Jersey
Do
1561
was false, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And the real reason you stayed at AGP for those three
months, when you had this ethical conflict, was, you were
looking out for yourself and wanted to get money, right?
A.
I don't recall.
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
You don't recall why you stayed?

I don't remember why I stayed on for
several months.
10
BY MR. PRICE:
11
Q.
12
under oath that you don't recall, when you, in fact, you do
13
recall, that that is a false statement under oath?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
You do realize that that also is perjury, if you say you
16
don't recall when, in fact, you do recall, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And your statement under oath before this jury is that
19
you don't remember why you decided to stay as the chief
20
counsel of AGP, a company that was run by Mr. Sigelman, for
21
three months after you met with Mr. Sigelman on December 15th
22
and recorded your conversation.
23
remember why you stayed there that whole time?
24
A.
25
why I left when I did or why I stayed.
Mr. Weisman, you do understand that if you testified
I was continuing to work.
Your testimony is, you don't
It was my job.

Camden, New Jersey
I don't recall
1562
Q.
gave us a couple days ago, that a government official had told
you to stay and then told you to leave?
A.
Now, is that testimony as accurate as the testimony you
I had misremembered a couple days ago.
5
6
THE COURT:
Misremembered?
Did you have a
hallucination?
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. PRICE:
Q.
No, I just...
You realize that a lot of your testimony is supported
10
solely by your word, right?
11
A.
I think there's a lot of support that's been presented.
12
Q.
But you know that a lot of your testimony, such as, Mr.
13
Sigelman told you to take the side letter out of the closing
14
binders, that a lot of that is supported solely by you saying
15
that's what happened, correct?
16
A.
17
presented that supports it.
18
Q.
19
-- with PetroTiger, that Mr. Sigelman said to you, alone in a
20
room, that no one else could hear, that he couldn't explain
21
the Hoff payments.
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Now, that's another example of a statement that's
24
supported only by your word, correct?
25
A.
Again, I think there's a lot of evidence that's been
Well, another example, you said that in a mediation with
Do you remember that?
Yes.

Camden, New Jersey
1563
Q.
given your word under oath before this jury, you have given
false testimony, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
By the way, the mediation that you spoke about with
PetroTiger, PetroTiger wasn't even talking with you about
anything to do with payments from Dr. Hoff, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Let me start up, then, where we left off yesterday, and
And you've told us that in this courtroom when you have
10
we were talking about your statement to the jury under oath,
11
that in October of 2010, you were afraid that you would be
12
fired if you did not send the payment to Mr. Duran.
13
remember that?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And incidentally, you testified about conversations in
16
October that were just between you and Mr. Sigelman, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And there's no e-mail or document which supports your
19
allegation concerning the substance of what happened in that
20
conversation, correct?
21
A.
22
Mr. Hammarskjold sent to me.
23
Q.
24
Sigelman -- is Mr. Sigelman on that?
25
A.
Do you
There's the follow-up e-mail that Mr. Sigelman had --
Well, there's an e-mail from Mr. Hammarskjold that Mr.
No.

Camden, New Jersey
1564
Q.
you to make where to make a payment, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
But your testimony that Mr. Sigelman said the company is,
I think the way you put it, screwed, that the company is going
to go out of business if you don't send this wire.
have for that is your word, right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So looking at that statement, your word, about what Mr.
Okay.
There's an e-mail from Mr. Hammarskjold directing
All we
10
Sigelman said and what you thought, we were talking about your
11
-- your belief, your terrified belief that you would be fired,
12
and we were looking at Exhibit 2264, and in particular, Page
13
25.
14
THE COURT:
That's the shareholder agreement, right?
15
MR. PRICE:
Yes, Your Honor.
16
THE COURT:
Okay.
17
MR. PRICE:
It's page 25, Your Honor.
18
THE COURT:
Okay.
What page?
I'm sorry, what page?
19
BY MR. PRICE:
20
Q.
21
document that you helped draft and that you also signed on
22
behalf of PetroTiger in August of 2009, correct?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
That was a year before this conversation you say you had
25
with Mr. Sigelman in October of 2010, correct?
And we were looking at paragraph 5.6, and this is a

Camden, New Jersey
1565
A.
Yes, over a year before.
Q.
And this document sets forth some of the limitations on
Mr. Sigelman's powers as the CEO, correct?
A.
executive officer unless it's approved by majority of the
board.
Q.
And you were an executive officer, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And so what this says is that for you, an executive
Yeah, in general, the company cannot hire or terminate an
10
officer, to be terminated, to be fired, that would have to be
11
approved by at least the majority of the members of the board
12
of directors, correct?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And executive officer included any executive officer of
15
the company that reported directly to either co-chief
16
executive officer of the company, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
So that meant any executive officer that reported to Mr.
19
Sigelman could not be fired by Mr. Sigelman unless the board
20
of directors agreed, right?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
On your direct examination, you spoke about tension
23
between members of the board of directors and Mr. Sigelman, at
24
this time, correct?
25
A.
Yes.

Camden, New Jersey
1566
Q.
showing you documents concerning you making wires to
Mr. Duran's account, he showed you an e-mail that had been
sent concerning members of the board coming in and talking to
employees of PetroTiger.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, around this time -- but you recall that the date of
that was -- was it October 12, 2010?
A.
I'm not certain.
10
Q.
Around this time, there were a lot of issues with the
11
board of directors, correct?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And, in fact, you and Mr. Sigelman co-authored a memo on
14
October 12th, 2010, kind of setting forth your views,
15
management's views, of the issues that were percolating with
16
the board of directors, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And if we could show -- I'll show you what we'll mark as
19
Exhibit 2541 for identification, Your Honor.
And, in fact, Mr. Intrater showed you an e-mail -- after
Do you recall that?
20
THE COURT:
Is it D?
21
MR. PRICE:
Yes, Your Honor, D.
22
THE COURT:
2541.
23
MR. PRICE:
It is.
24
THE COURT:
Okay.
25
again?
That's 2541.
This is a new exhibit.
What's the date of that memo
October.

Camden, New Jersey
1567
MR. PRICE:
The date is October 11, 2010, for the
e-mail.
but the date on the face of the document is October 11th.
It's on the face.
4
5
THE COURT:
Okay.
The memo is October 12th, 2010,
That's marked for identification.
(DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)
THE COURT:
Thank you.
BY MR. PRICE:
Q.
between -- from Mr. Sigelman, copying you, to Eric Levine?
The cover page, do you recognize as the communication
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And Mr. Levine was an attorney, a civil attorney, that
12
represented you and Mr. Sigelman?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And attached, you see, is a -- looks like a memorandum
15
from you, Mr. Sigelman, Mr. Hammarskjold, to the Series A
16
members of the board of directors?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And did you help author this?
19
A.
Yes.
20
21
22
MR. PRICE:
Your Honor, I move Exhibit 2541 in
evidence.
MR. INTRATER:
Your Honor, we would object.
23
just ask for a brief sidebar.
24
THE COURT:
25
(SIDEBAR AS FOLLOWS:)
Okay.
Go over to sidebar.

Camden, New Jersey
We would
1568
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
1
2
MR. STOKES:
Your Honor, I can explain some of the
reasons why we object.
THE COURT:
First, Your Honor --
Can I ask you just a couple of questions?
Mr. Weisman and Mr. Sigelman were still employed by PetroTiger
when this was written.
MR. INTRATER:
MR. STOKES:
THE COURT:
9
10
Yes, Your Honor.

Yes.
When this was written, although
apparently they had their lawyer, their civil lawyer was

already on board, even though they hadn't yet been fired.
11
MR. STOKES:
12
MR. PRICE:
That's right.
13
THE COURT:
Okay.
14
MR. STOKES:
That's right.
What we believe this is, we don't
15
believe Mr. Weisman actually would know or remember whether
16
this was ever provided to the board or anybody in management
17
at the company.
18
Mr. Weisman and their personal lawyer, Mr. --
19
This is just an e-mail between Mr. Sigelman,
THE COURT:
Why does that make it not admissible,
20
though?
21
correct, that this reflects their joint thinking about
22
something.
23
yet, but that it was not provided to other board members or
24
other officers of the company.
25
MR. STOKES:
Let's assume you are correct, let's assume you are
And let's assume for argument's sake, I don't know
Let's assume that's correct.
Yes.

Camden, New Jersey
1569
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
1
2
3
THE COURT:
Why does that, per se, make it
inadmissible?
MR. STOKES:
Yes, Your Honor, we think it's
inadmissible for evidentiary 403 and the other is 8036.
is not an appropriate business record.
Sigelman cooking up defenses for the future, self-serving
statements.
identify and create his allegations as to why they are
performing well, why it is that they should not be fired, why
This is simply Mr.
It's pure hearsay by Mr. Sigelman in order to
10
it is that their view of reality is their view.
11
self-serving hearsay.
12
reliable document.
13
This
It's pure
There's no evidence that it's a
It doesn't come in under 8036.
It's also, Your Honor, defense's tee'd this up --
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. STOKES:
Say again, defense has -- tee'd -Has tee'd this up in what is a
16
completely specious issue whether or not Mr. Weisman can be
17
fired by Mr. Sigelman.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. STOKES:
This is not --
Say that again.

This comes at the end of a line of
20
questioning as to whether Mr. Weisman thinks he can be fired
21
by Mr. Sigelman, and now we're entering into -- well, Mr.
22
Sigelman doesn't have any control over the board.
23
that's true or not, the witness is now entering into
24
employment dispute issues.
25
THE COURT:
Whether
I'm not -- he testified in the past -- I

Camden, New Jersey
1570
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
mean, not in the past, two minutes ago, that he was -- he did
something because he was afraid he was going to be fired
and -- he's testified to that yesterday and that testimony has
been repeated.
MR. STOKES:
THE COURT:
MR. STOKES:
Yes.
In one form or another, many times.
And so this document has nothing
additional to do with this issue, and the employment dispute
between Mr. Sigelman and the board of directors has nothing at
10
all to do with that issue.
11
trial a number of issues, performance and issues related to
12
Mr. Sigelman at the trial and his trumpeting what a great CEO
13
he is.
14
introduce issues in the case that are completely irrelevant to
15
the case and the charges.
16
This is just injecting into the
It's coming in here is a Trojan horse, Your Honor, to
MR. PRICE:
The reason we have to do this is because
17
of what happened on direct.
18
Mr. Intrater questioned Mr. Weisman about the wire to
19
Mr. Duran in October.
On direct examination after
20
THE COURT:
The money wire.
21
MR. PRICE:
The money wire.
And the communications,
22
he then made a point, that on the very same day that happened,
23
put it in an e-mail, the very same day that happened, that Mr.
24
Sigelman complained to the Series A directors that they were
25
coming in and speaking with the people in finance and barred

Camden, New Jersey
1571
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
1
2
them from doing so.

And the clear import of that is that Mr. Sigelman did
that because he didn't want what he was doing to be discovered
concerning Mr. Duran.
clear as day that's what they're suggesting.
entitled to say, no, that was not the dispute.
much bigger dispute with the Series A investors.
that Mr. Sigelman was trying to prevent them from coming in to
look at financial records, and this document reflects what
10
11
If you look at the transcript, it's

I think we're
There was a
It wasn't
management actually thought at the time.

If we can't do this, then the jury is going to be left
12
with the misimpression that the dispute was all about trying
13
to keep things from the Series A directors concerning payments
14
to Mr. Duran.
15
MR. STOKES:
Your Honor, again, I don't believe the
16
defense can show this document ever went to management.
17
is simply Mr. Sigelman's musings that relate to his conspiracy
18
theories about how the world is out to get him.
19
dozens of documents of this nature, and the defense has been
20
repeatedly trying to inject this into the trial.
21
another example of that.
22
at hand.
23
frankly, falsely, without actually testifying.
24
these are issues that have nothing to do with our charges in
25
our case.
This
There are
This is just
It has nothing to do with the issues
It's allowing Mr. Sigelman to speak in the trial,

Camden, New Jersey
This is --
1572
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
MR. PRICE:
Well, then I ask, Your Honor, why did
Mr. Intrater put in that e-mail, the date was October 12th, I
believe, saying that Mr. Sigelman was upset that members of
the board of directors had come and asked questions of the
finance department?
record, and that's the only reason I'm putting this in, so we
can show this gentleman's thoughts.
through this page by page.
We did not put this issue into the
THE COURT:
"His" meaning?
10
MR. PRICE:
Mr. Weisman's.
11
12
I'm not going to go
He said he co-authored
this.
MR. STOKES:
Your Honor, there are many documents
13
directly to the point, direct communications with the board
14
about the very issues Mr. Price just identified.
15
to use those for their communications with the board about the
16
October 12th issue, he certainly is -- there are many
17
documents he can point to.
18
this issue.
19
his exemplary leadership of the company into the case.
20
document was never forwarded to the board.
21
If he wants
This document does not relate to
This is simply injecting Mr. Sigelman's views of

The
There are documents he can put in, in which the board
22
and Mr. Sigelman, around this time, are talking about these
23
very issues in September, in October, on performance and
24
dispute between management and Mr. Sigelman.
25
We've also argued that this whole entire area should be

Camden, New Jersey
1573
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
-- should be excluded because it's just an employment dispute
issue.
this document is in anticipation of litigation.
preparing it for their lawyer and there's no evidence of this
ever being delivered to management.
easily led around on cross, and has now been led to state that
he's made false testimony, when, in fact, what he really said
is, he made a mistake, is now being questioned --
9
10
THE COURT:
But
They're
Mr. Weisman, who is
He made a mistake, gives false testimony,
all right.
11
12
It has nothing to do with -- with the bribing.
MR. STOKES:
Well, Your Honor, we -- on that front,
we would ask that the witness --
13
THE COURT:
That's like when I was very heavy, I used
14
to tell my wife, I didn't go to Dairy Queen on the way home
15
from work every day.
16
MR. STOKES:
17
And, Your Honor, we would also ask for
the --
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. STOKES:
Just a mistake.
That's right.
And we would ask that the
20
jury be able to develop -- we be able to develop this evidence
21
with the defense, so that the jury can properly understand
22
that.
23
are all areas that are fair for the jury, but -- but,
24
injecting inadmissible hearsay into the trial related to an
25
employment dispute through the back door of, this is related
Because we think that both this and his prior testimony

Camden, New Jersey
1574
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
to a bribe payment, when it doesn't address the bribe payment
in any way, shape or form, is opening this case to a series of
issues that are utterly irrelevant.
THE COURT:
I mean, what's -- clearly, all the other
problems with the company are not particularly relevant to
what's going on here.
MR. PRICE:
They're only relevant because the
prosecution has suggested that the problem was that Mr.
Sigelman was directing board members not to go and talk to
10
finance because he was trying to hide something, and this
11
gentleman knows that that was not the problem.
12
his thoughts.
13
14
And these are
Now, I'm not going to go into this in detail.
I'm not
going to --
15
THE COURT:
How do you deal with that argument,
16
though?
17
the reason he was angry, although I know as a practical
18
matter, management hates it when directors go down to
19
employees and -- I've been in personal situations where that
20
happens, but -- I mean, when I was practicing law, and -- but
21
what's -- you brought that up.
22
MR. STOKES:
You chose to make a very minor point.
I mean, that
Your Honor, what we brought up was an
23
e-mail, and Mr. Weisman explained an e-mail in which there was
24
a dispute, in which Mr. Sigelman directed the board members
25
not to talk to management, and Mr. Weisman explained --

Camden, New Jersey
1575
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
THE COURT:
But you elicited that, and you brought
that out, as clearly you're going to argue that that's the
reason that he didn't like that, he was afraid they would find
out, the directors would find out about his alleged --
MR. STOKES:
THE COURT:
MR. STOKES:
That's -Then why did you elicit it?

Because at that time, Mr. Sigelman and
the board are -- the very day that Mr. Weisman and Mr.
Sigelman are paying the bribe, around the time of the paying
10
of bribes, Mr. Sigelman is directing the board to stay away
11
from the company.
12
context.
13
So we absolutely brought that up in that
Mr. Price can -THE COURT:
You're going to make an argument --
14
you're going to argue that's proof, in fact, that he made a
15
bribe.
16
MR. STOKES:
17
THE COURT:
18
19
20
21
And Mr. Price -It's bootstrapping in a way, but that's
the argument you're going to make.

MR. STOKES:
No, no, we're not arguing that because
of that, he made a bribe.

THE COURT:
We're arguing --
No, no, but the fact that your position
22
is, he wouldn't have had any problem with the board if he
23
hadn't been paying a bribe, but because he had paid a bribe,
24
he didn't want the board to be, in effect, investigating it.
25
You brought that up.

Camden, New Jersey
1576
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
MR. STOKES:
Your Honor, Mr. Price can certainly
question Mr. Weisman about the e-mail.
pertinent.
is not given to the board on that same day --
5
6
7
8
What is giving to the board have to do
I'm trying to -MR. STOKES:
Our argument is that this is not a
business record, this is purely --
9
10
The fact that a memo is drafted by management that
THE COURT:
with it?
These issues are not
THE COURT:
Oh, no, it's not, I agree with that.
They haven't argued it's a business record.
11
MR. STOKES:
And so it's an unreliable statement of
12
Mr. Sigelman simply arguing issues that are not pertinent to
13
the dispute at issue on October 12, where Mr. Sigelman tells
14
the board to stop interfering and questioning witnesses.
15
Mr. Price wants to ask about that, he can certainly do that.
16
This memo does not address those issues.
17
If
This memo simply imports months and months of dispute
18
about economic and performance issues that have nothing to do
19
with any of these issues.
20
jury.
21
employment dispute and suggest to the jury that something's
22
going on here that's not.
And it's just going to confuse the
It's just going to be used to turn this trial into an
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. STOKES:
25
MR. PRICE:
This is -- if you --
Go ahead, go ahead.
You finished?
Yes.
I have a suggested solution.

Camden, New Jersey
I mean, we
1577
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
all know that that e-mail that he put in was sort of a cheap
shot.
Management does not like --
THE COURT:
MR. STOKES:
THE COURT:
Wait, I don't, and I'm -- don't take my
silence as agreeing with that.
MR. PRICE:
MR. STOKES:
10
No, I disagree that we agree that that's
a cheap shot.
6
7
Wait.
Okay.
But --
I'm just taking his word to saying we
don't agree.
11
MR. PRICE:
Let's say it's a leap, a leap, to infer
12
from that, that was to hide bribe payments.
13
is, I don't have to get into this.
14
thoughts, by the way, not Mr. Sigelman's.
And my solution
These are Mr. Weisman's
15
THE COURT:
Yes.
16
MR. PRICE:
Mr. Sigelman's as well, but Mr. Weisman.
17
We keep hearing Mr. Sigelman.
18
if we strike that testimony.
19
THE COURT:
What, tell me --
20
MR. PRICE:
The testimony concerning the e-mail about
I don't need to get into this
21
telling the board not to start -- not to be talking to their
22
employees.
23
point.
24
25
Identify the number of the e-mail, it is a small
THE COURT:
Go back.
Why is that probative of your
case?

Camden, New Jersey
1578
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
MR. STOKES:
THE COURT:
Your Honor, first -What fact in dispute is going to be
proved by that e-mail?
MR. STOKES:
That e-mail is going to establish two
things.
employment dispute and issues related with antagonism between
the board and Mr. Sigelman, and so we introduced that e-mail
in part for that purpose.
One, in opening, the defense has opened on an
But also in part to show that at the very time they're
10
paying bribes, Mr. Sigelman, Mr. Weisman, Mr. Hammarskjold,
11
that they are in a dispute with the board and trying to keep
12
the board from interfering with the company.
13
performance reasons, but because they want the board out of
14
their business so that they can go on and do their business,
15
which includes, among many things --
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. STOKES:
18
that directly.
19
to --
20
Not only for
That's a very powerful inference, though.

Actually -- and Mr. Price can ask about
And Mr. Price -- we're not, we're not going
THE COURT:
No, no, no.
But one of his points is --
21
just a minute.
22
the board meddling in their affairs.
23
way the company was being operated, I'll call them operational
24
factors of the company.
25
There were lots of reasons they didn't want
MR. STOKES:
It had to do with the
I mean, that's -- well, all right.
And we think that point can adequately

Camden, New Jersey
1579
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
be established through cross-examination.
document itself is --
THE COURT:
Very simply, this
Well, I'm going to -- I'm not going to
let the document in, but I'm going to allow him to
cross-examine as to what was going on at the company.
this is a source of information, at the very least.
again if on cross-examination you would have a rational basis,
but that's not a requirement, again you can't ask a question
out of the clear blue sky, but this is a basis for pointing
And
I mean,
10
out that there may be 20 other issues that would have
11
justified -- I'm a little afraid of this because they have
12
this thing, we don't know, he can't remember how much he
13
prepared, how much Sigelman prepared, how much --
14
Hammarskjold's on this, how much Hammarskjold prepared.
15
just typical vague testimony.
16
It's
He knows, you know, he knows enough just to be
17
dangerous and -- but not more than that.
18
him, without reference to this document, although he can get
19
information from it, but I'm going to let him cross-examine on
20
what other issues there were that might --
21
MR. STOKES:
Sure, understood.
But I'm going to let
And the government
22
doesn't object.
23
and the issue of keeping Mr. Sigelman, keeping the board --
24
25
We just ask that it be tied to October 12th
THE COURT:
Well, you've -- look, we know --
apparently it's not even disputed, in a way, that the board

Camden, New Jersey
1580
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
was, and I hate to use the word interfering, the board was, in
effect, going behind the executive management to get
information from other employees, okay?
that happened.
to draw the inference that the reason they didn't want, you
know, they wanted them to keep their noses out of their
affairs is that they didn't want them to know that there was
bribery going on.
really is, for something as slender, factually, as that.
10
Both sides agree that
I mean, nobody denies that, and you've tried
That is a big-time powerful inference, it
And I think he's entitled to show that there are lots
11
of issues going on, where there was the meddling by the board
12
with the employees, they would have a reason for not wanting
13
that.
14
And I'm going to let him do that.

What I'm not going to let him do is put this in because
15
I don't even have clear testimony of who authored this thing.
16
I don't know who it was delivered to.
17
again --
18
MR. STOKES:
19
THE COURT:
I mean, you know,
Thank you.
It's -- I mean, to me, it's troubling.
20
mean, Weisman can remember details of a particular word that
21
somebody used in a particular conversation five years ago, but
22
some bigger picture thing, he suddenly doesn't remember and --
23
I really haven't gotten clear testimony what role he played in
24
this.
25
Just saying, I had input, doesn't tell me anything.

MR. PRICE:
I can ask him more questions about that.

Camden, New Jersey
1581
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
I certainly would like to impeach him with this, if he says
this wasn't -- something wasn't an issue, since his name was
on this, he was copied on this.
And with respect to whether or not the document itself
should come in, I think it should come in for his state of
mind, because that's what we're talking about, is what they
were thinking, and if Mr. Stokes thinks --
8
9
THE COURT:
Well, if you want to use it to impeach,
I'm going to deal with that if it comes up.
10
impeach in a way --
11
MR. PRICE:
I think you can
So, one thing I was going to suggest --
12
it seems that one of the things Mr. Stokes is worried about is
13
sort of the bragging as to how Mr. Sigelman did as a manager.
14
THE COURT:
I'm sorry?
15
MR. PRICE:
He mentioned that this is Mr. Sigelman's
16
self-serving statements as to how well management did.
17
goes through Page 6 of -- the middle of Page 6.
That
18
THE COURT:
Yeah.
19
MR. PRICE:
And that's not at all what I'm trying to
20
accomplish here.
21
redacted.
22
board and Mr. Sigelman, and I'd like to do it --
23
And I have no objection to that being
All I want to focus on is the tensions between the
THE COURT:
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but Mr.
24
Stokes, look, when you drew the inference, you know, and very
25
expressly put it in that you wanted them to tie his anger at

Camden, New Jersey
1582
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
the board or his upsetedness with the board in dealing
directly with people below the executive management, the
inference you want them to draw is that he didn't want them to
uncover skulduggery -- the bribes, or the alleged bribes.
as I said, that's a very powerful inference, and I think he's
entitled to say, hey, no, there's just a million -- there's a
million other things.
8
9
MR. STOKES:
And
Judge, I frankly don't remember the
witness's exact words on that testimony.
I think the point
10
we've really established in the statement they're paying
11
bribes, that management is -- that the relationship with the
12
board has soured, and certainly, that is -- and Mr. Sigelman
13
and the board are fighting over whether the board should have
14
access to employees, not that they're -- I don't believe we
15
ever say --
16
THE COURT:
If he's not allowed to bring out through
17
Weisman what other things they were arguing over, what other
18
issues there were for them --
19
MR. STOKES:
20
way.
21
should be admissible.
22
23
We're not objecting to that in a limited
What we're saying is, this document, we don't think,
THE COURT:
I've already ruled.
I'm not going to
admit the document, it's marked for identification.
24
MR. STOKES:
25
MR. PRICE:
Understood.
Your Honor, I think the same day, it's

Camden, New Jersey
1583
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
October 12th, you know, they're making a time issue, so I
think I should --
THE COURT:
MR. STOKES:
MR. PRICE:
MR. STOKES:
Versions of this document are produced
up through 2012.
Well, you --
Sure.
So this document was not delivered to
anybody on October 12.

THE COURT:
You make the point I delivered -- the
10
issue is not so much delivery to the board.
11
of what his mindset was.
12
testimony up to now is used as a basis for arguing that they
13
were -- that Sigelman was upset with this behind back door,
14
because he wanted to hide illegal activity.
15
powerful inference, and I think he's entitled to show although
16
there's all kinds of other reasons that -- if he denies, it
17
isn't true that you were having trouble, you know, paying
18
expense -- whatever it is, something unrelated to that, and he
19
says, no, that's not an issue, and yet this thing says -- I
20
think he's entitled to show that it says that.
21
MR. STOKES:
22
THE COURT:
It's the question
I mean, to the extent that his
That's a very
Absolutely.
Not to get the thing in evidence, but
23
say, wasn't it -- memo, we've already identified it.
24
you sign onto that memo?
25
agreed with the contents of the memo?
Didn't
Didn't your signing on show that you

I mean, that's a

Camden, New Jersey
1584
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
legitimate question, and didn't you say in this memo, yeah,
what other problems we were having, we weren't paying our
bills on time or whatever it is.
MR. STOKES:
Absolutely.
And, Your Honor, our
request is twofold.
on one of them, the first issue, as the Court ruled, this
document is not coming into evidence.
8
9
One is, and the Court has already ruled
The second is, we're alerting the Court that we believe

that this is a way of opening this case to a gigantic
10
employment dispute, and we're simply saying that we think for
11
403 reasons -- and that would come up as questions are asked.
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. STOKES:
14
THE COURT:
15
I'm going to try to control that.

Yes.
I'll try to do the best I can.
You know,
the sign in the old western bar, don't shoot the piano player.
16
MR. STOKES:
17
THE COURT:
18
But I think you're underestimating how powerful the
We're not shooting.

He's doing the best he can.
19
inference.
20
Sigelman was angry or upset, or whatever right words you want
21
to use, were that board members were going behind the
22
executive management to gather information from employees, was
23
because he didn't want them to uncover he was doing anything
24
as, you know, bribing people, whatever.
25
powerful inference, and I think he's entitled to --
You're allowed to put in evidence that the reason
That's a powerful,

Camden, New Jersey
1585
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
1
2
MR. STOKES:
I'm not sure that's the inference we
were actually planning to draw from that, but --
THE COURT:
I know, but he's -- of course, it is.
There's no secret to that point, but he's entitled to show --
no, just a minute.
were going on that may have upset.
employment dispute.
MR. PRICE:
There's a lot of other reasons things that

Even if it relates to an
If I could suggest, because this will
save hours, hours of time, if I have to go through all this
10
and do what Mr. Stokes suggested, I think he's just said he
11
doesn't think that that was the reason they put the document
12
in.
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. STOKES:
Oh, no, he said it was the reason.

Why don't we talk, if we can spend five
15
minutes looking at the transcript, what I think that your
16
suggestion is, could we strike the testimony.
17
MR. PRICE:
Let's strike the testimony.
18
THE COURT:
Do you want me to just send the jury out
19
and give you time?
20
21
MR. PRICE:
Let's do that.
Because I think striking
it --
22
MR. STOKES:
23
MR. PRICE:
It will save us a couple hours.
24
THE COURT:
I will send the jury out for 15 minutes
25
and then you can.
We will take a look at it.
But, right now, at least at this moment, my

Camden, New Jersey
1586
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION
ruling is, this is not admitted into evidence, but the -- to
the extent that he can establish, which I think he can, that
this reflects the views of Gregory Weisman.
Weisman contradicts, like, there's a paragraph, you know, the
impression is, oh, no, I don't agree with that, I think he can
impeach him, and say, didn't you participate in this.
you agree that this was an accurate statement, and to impeach
him in that -- that's my ruling up to this point.
agree on what to strike, maybe that would save more time.
If Gregory
Didn't
If you can
10
MR. STOKES:
11
THE COURT:
But up to this point, that's my ruling.
12
MR. PRICE:
Okay.
13
THE COURT:
I'll to send the jury out.
14
(END OF SIDEBAR.)
15
THE COURT:
Sure.
Ladies and gentlemen, we still have a
16
legal issue we have to resolve over the next few minutes.
17
rather than have you just sit here and cool your heels, we're
18
going to send you out for 15 minutes to relax while they --
19
while we all try to resolve that issue.
20
So I would appreciate it if you bear with me.
21
we may save lots and lots of time if we get this thing
22
resolved.
I think
23
So with that, I'm excusing you for 15 minutes.
24
Please, again, do not -- A, don't speculate on what
25
So
we're discussing, and don't discuss the case among yourselves.

Camden, New Jersey
1587
Keep an open mind until you've heard all the evidence.
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
(JURY EXITS; 9:19 a.m.)
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. PRICE:
Thank you, Judge.
MR. STOKES:
(RECESS TAKEN; 9:20 a.m.)
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
All rise.
Folks.
inside.
Thank you, Judge.
All rise.
10
(JURY ENTERS 10:51 a.m.)
11
(OPEN COURT; 10:52 a.m.)
12
THE COURT:
13
14
If you need me, I'm -- I'm
Good morning, everybody.
Please be
seated.
I have news.
I have news.
And the news is this:
The
15
legal matters that the parties have been working on are still
16
not resolved and I can't predict in my meaningful way whether
17
it's going to take a half hour, an hour, two hours and I don't
18
want you at the end of the week sitting in that room.
19
a lovely room, I know that, but sitting in that room, you
20
know, with little to do.
21
to send you home for the weekend and we will resume Monday
22
morning at 8:30, regular time.
23
sure the thanks of all counsel, as well, for your
24
participation, your diligence.
25
That's
So what I'm going to do is I'm going
And again, my thanks, and I'm
Please, don't discuss the case among yourselves.

Camden, New Jersey
Keep
1588
an open mind until you've heard all the evidence.
discuss the case with your family, friends or loved ones, no
research on the case.
everything you need to learn here in the court.
extraordinary profound thanks, have a safe trip home, have a
great weekend and I'll see you Monday.
You'll get your -- you'll learn
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
(JURY EXITS; 10:53 a.m.)
THE COURT:
10
Don't
All rise.
Can I see counsel.
(10:54 a.m.)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Camden, New Jersey
And with my

US V Sigelman Trial Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US V Sigelman Trial Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1543

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NO. CRIM. 14-263

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS

U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP

United States District Court

CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GREGORY S. WEISMAN BY

United States District Court

DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR

United States District Court

(OPEN COURT, June 11, 2015, 8:08 a.m.)

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

Each one wants to put in the December 15th transcript parts

that they think favor one side.

them out and put in what they think favors them.

Well, we are continuing the battle of both sides.

The other side wants to keep

of you are going to get away with it.

through a hundred pages?

that you wanted out.

I'm sorry, Judge, I thought -- I

I thought you had asked for the parts highlighted

I wanted highlight, but if you gave me

Well, anyway, I'm going to make two

rulings about this transcript, maybe more than two.

because those are conversations in which Sigelman is not even

This is a reception, coming up, you know, really,

United States District Court

but everything where the two of them are together.

denying the motion as to all the rest of them.

How these two people interacted, the subtleties of body

language and everything, I think the jury is entitled to see,

and I'm going to let -- I'm going to let it in.

the tape now on the guise that you are cross-examining

That's not cross-examining.

You're just playing the

cross-examining Weisman, you've cross-examined him on all

kinds of things on the tape.

play the tape.

going to admit it in evidence, and if the jury wants to listen

to it and play the whole tape, we're going to make

arrangements so they can to do that.

here, take a peek -- no more than I would take a document and

let you read the whole document.

You've had now two or two and-a-half days of

I'm not going to let you just

In effect, you've offered it in evidence, I'm

But I'm not going to sit

This is cross-examination, and I'm not going to -- I'm

As I say, if there's particular sentences -- if there's

particular parts that you want to really cross-examine on,

actually crossed on many things.

But if there are things you

haven't done yet, you can do it.

But not just play the whole

But you've done that already, you've

United States District Court

I'm not going to allow that.

You got that?

I understand that, Your Honor.

You don't agree, but you understand that?

I hear you, Your Honor.