8.FBI 302 Redaction Hearing and Related Mitigation-Evidence Disputes
200 linesP R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: So principally, I just wanted to deal with the fact about the 302.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Although there are still a few remaining disputes on the Dolakov 302 as well.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. I thought -- okay. So the first page is not a problem. I think you're on the same page.
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
THE COURT: And so two questions occurred to me. I guess this is -- there are two reasons for sculpting, if we can call it that, the contents of this: One is to limit it to what each side would proffer. That's kind of an affirmative way of thinking about it; and then the other is to remove things that either side thinks should be removed. In other words, you might not offer a paragraph but not object to the government's offering it.
MS. CONRAD: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: But you might say, "No, that shouldn't go in no matter who offers it."
MS. CONRAD: Right.
THE COURT: Okay? So I'm trying to distinguish between those because some of the things where there were differences I thought might be in the category of you just weren't interested in it, not that you didn't think it should be there, and so we could go through it and I think maybe --
MS. CONRAD: Well, I think really all of these are things where the government doesn't think we should be putting them in. I don't think they're anywhere --
THE COURT: Well, they think it because of the kind of evidence they are. I don't know if there's -- yeah, there's probably a relevance objection as well.
MR. WEINREB: In some cases, although I think in most cases where there was a relevance objection we agreed to take it out. Maybe not. But for the most part. They're situations where the government believes that it's -- particularly given the fact that the person can't be cross-examined.
THE COURT: Right. And I have that in mind because this is unusual in that we're, you know, dealing with evidence that in the normal course of a regular guilt-phase trial, non-death case trial, would not be admissible. But because of the broader latitude for evidence in this phase, it is. But that doesn't mean everything comes in either, of course. So we have to deal with those.
So let's just get down to the nuts and bolts. On page 2, it says at the end of the paragraph in the middle of the page, the government -- at the top of the page I think you're in agreement. The government would strike the last sentence of the fourth full paragraph.
MS. CONRAD: The one that says "Dolakov heard Tamerlan Tsarnaev's parents" --
THE COURT: Yeah.
I mean, I'm inclined to strike it just to put a little bit of a stake in the ground against double hearsay. Everybody knows they went there. You said it a million times. I don't think it's a fact that's in controversy but --
MS. CONRAD: Okay. I mean, not okay, but I understand.
THE COURT: So I would take that sentence out, okay?
In the defense version in the next paragraph you would omit the sentences about the friends. Again, I didn't know whether you just weren't interested in putting that in or whether you object to that being put before the jury.
MS. CONRAD: I didn't think it was relevant from --
THE COURT: We heard a little bit about it this morning from Mr. Franca.
MS. CONRAD: I don't have the unredacted version so I don't remember what it says.
THE COURT: "Vakhabov and Tamerlan's group of mutual friends included Abu Bakar, Ibrahim LNU and Slava Go Lkov. Abu Bakar is Chechen and currently resides in Texas."
MR. WEINREB: So, your Honor, there are no redactions that the defense has made that we object to; in other words, the mere fact that it's not --
THE COURT: Okay. So you don't care?
MS. CONRAD: I was just trying to focus on --
MR. WEINREB: We don't care.
THE COURT: So that can stay out, then?
MR. WEINREB: That can stay out.
THE COURT: All right. So that's one of the things I wasn't clear about.
MS. CONRAD: I think the next one is the last sentence on that next paragraph.
THE COURT: The last sentence on the next paragraph and the next single-sentence paragraph.
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: And I would exclude both of those on this principle: I think that the admission of these kinds of documents, the 302s, can be appropriate when the evidence to be presented is essentially factual -- historical factual in nature, but not opinion, because I think opinion testimony is testimony that especially calls for cross-examination to get the metrics of the opinion, the intensity of it and various things, and I think just a flat statement of opinion that is uncross-examinable --
MS. CONRAD: Not subject to cross-examination.
THE COURT: Right.
-- should be -- let's see how she writes that.
So I think that's a reason for excluding it.
MS. CONRAD: May I just be heard as to these particular ones? I get the general principle, your Honor, and I know there's another one coming up --
THE COURT: There is.
MS. CONRAD: -- where he says I don't think Jahar would have done that but for. That's an opinion. But to say their relationship grew apart as Tamerlan's views became more radical is a statement of fact. It's not an opinion that their relationship grew apart. He's explaining his own conduct and what he did as a result of his observations. And I think part of --
THE COURT: I'll give you half of that sentence. The word I have a problem with is "radical." I don't know what this witness regards as radical or not.
MS. CONRAD: Well, I think he talks elsewhere about jihadi videos and --
THE COURT: I think it's too vague a term. So if you want the first half of the sentence, that their relationship grew apart, that's fine. I don't have any problem with that.
MR. WEINREB: Nor do we.
MS. CONRAD: Well, I think it doesn't make sense without the other part. I think it explains what he's saying. I mean, these are both observations. "He was becoming an extremist radical Muslim."
THE COURT: Okay. That's my offer.
MR. BRUCK: What if we took out "radical." "As his views became more..."
THE COURT: Blank?
MR. BRUCK: "More pronounced."
THE COURT: No, no, we can't edit the document.
MS. CLARKE: We can't make it "As a result of Tamerlan Tsarnaev's views"? I mean, that's what it means.
THE COURT: No, I don't think we can edit by changing wording.
MS. CONRAD: Note my objection.
THE COURT: So take the whole thing out or do you want half the sentence?
MS. CONRAD: No, I don't want half the sentence. It doesn't make sense otherwise.
THE COURT: Okay. So those will be out.
Similarly, at the end of the next full paragraph on the -- full paragraph on the next page, "all of them were radical" for the same reason. And then you accept these that are in the defense even though you didn't have it in yours?
MR. WEINREB: Yes. Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And then -- right. I think the next one is page 4.
THE COURT: Page 4, the third from the bottom is the way it works out. That's all you have on the page.
MS. CONRAD: Yup. Yup.
THE COURT: And you're exact opposites on this paragraph.
MS. CONRAD: Oh, like I said, I don't have the rest of it, but I understand him, that "Tsarnaev's influence could be the only thing that pushed Jahar," that's an opinion and I accept that, but "Jahar is like a little boy," I mean, those are his observations.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I think under the circumstances that's not an observation; that's an opinion.
MS. CONRAD: Well --
MR. WEINREB: I can imagine 20 questions I would want to ask him about that, what exactly he actually meant by that.
MS. CONRAD: Well, it's sort of like if he said somebody was shot, you know? Is that an opinion or is that an observation? I mean, you watch someone's behavior and --
THE COURT: I think if we were applying the rules of evidence it would be a lay opinion.
MS. CONRAD: That someone was shot?
THE COURT: Yeah. Someone's drunk. That's a classic lay opinion. So I think the paragraph should go out. Since you don't want the middle sentence, which is fine, and the government doesn't agree with it, so I think that paragraph should go out. And I think that does it.
So somebody will make a copy that conforms to this for the witness?
MS. CONRAD: And can I just -- with respect to what the Court said at sidebar.
MR. WEINREB: Yeah, we have some disputes on the Dolakov 302s.
THE COURT: All right. Let's do that.
MR. WEINREB: So it might be useful for the record if these have exhibit numbers, which I believe they do.
MS. CONRAD: Yeah, it's 3270A.
MR. WEINREB: Which is which date?
MS. CONRAD: Which is the April 30th. Date of entry is made first. It's an eight-page document.
MR. WEINREB: Can I have the exhibit number again?
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry?
MR. WEINREB: The exhibit number again?
MS. CONRAD: 3270A.
MR. WEINREB: 3207A?
MS. CONRAD: No, 3270A.
MR. WEINREB: 3270A? All right.
So this document that I have, this copy, is the -- what the defense proposes to offer with various parts highlighted which are parts that the government believes should be excluded. On the first page it's the last full paragraph which we object to on relevance grounds, and following on to the following paragraph, and then the next one, the one-sentence paragraph.
And essentially the government's objection is that Dolakov's own experience with the FSB and Moscow has nothing to do with this case but -- I mean, I don't think there's any evidence that either Tsarnaev brothers were in Moscow and --
THE COURT: Okay. I'm inclined to leave it in. General, general relations between Russia and Chechnya and the people, I think, is part of the theme here. So it's not, you know, powerful evidence, I don't think, but I think it's consistent with one of the themes.
MR. WEINREB: Then on page 3 of 8, the third full paragraph, the third sentence, "Tamerlan told Dolakov that the FBI had come and spoken with him."
That we object to on the grounds that it is more prejudicial than probative. It's really -- given that there's no context for it in this document whatsoever, it's not really probative of anything, and it's prejudicial in the sense that it could easily -- there's a risk that it will mislead the jury and confuse the issues.
THE COURT: Will the 2011 FBI 302s of Tamerlan and his parents be in before the jury?
MS. CONRAD: We're offering them and they're objecting.
MR. WEINREB: We have moved to exclude them.
THE COURT: Maybe that's a prior decision.
MR. WEINREB: So that's part of our larger motion in limine.
THE COURT: Because that would connect to this, right?
MR. WEINREB: That's true.
THE COURT: So maybe we should talk about that.
MR. WEINREB: Very well.
MS. CLARKE: Bill, that's 3236A, the FBI reports.
MS. CONRAD: 3236A and B, or just A?
MS. CLARKE: No, there's two of them. It must be A and B. I just had an A down here.
MS. CONRAD: There's all sorts of references to it in the Homeland Security and Intelligence Community reports.
THE COURT: And these are just the -- yeah, here they are.
MR. WEINREB: So, your Honor, for the record now, I believe we were talking about --
THE COURT: This is 3235A and 3236A.
MR. WEINREB: That's all I was going to say at that point.
So the government's objection, unless you want to read them first.
THE COURT: Well, I read them yesterday.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So the entire --
MR. BRUCK: I think we should clarify we're not going to offer the actual 302s.
MS. CONRAD: We want to --
MR. BRUCK: We want to simply show the fact of the interview.
MS. CLARKE: And the connection.
MS. CONRAD: So there are references to the interviews in a number of other exhibits including the Homeland Security committee report and the Intelligence Community report. And really what we want to get in is the fact that, first of all -- and this is also disputed evidence -- the fact that there was information received from the Russian government regarding Tamerlan and Zubeidat's radicalization, and second of all, that this prompted the FBI to open an investigation into them which they went and interviewed them.
We're not really interested in the contents of the 302s as far as what Zubeidat said and what Tamerlan said and what Anzor said, what we want is the fact that this information was there because it corroborates the evidence that Tamerlan was becoming radicalized and that Zubeidat was part of that process. And those are two important parts of our narrative.
Now, you know, I think the government's objection is they don't want there to be speculation about, you know, could the FBI have prevented this and why did the FBI do this and why did the FBI do that, and I've been very careful in redacting the Homeland Security and Intelligence Community reports to take out the discussion of, you know, possible miscommunications, failures of follow-up or whatever you will.
We're not trying to say, you know, Gee, what if the government had done this? What if the FBI had done that? But we think the fact that there was information received and the contents of that information, which is the SMS text that we want to offer, is relevant because it shows what was happening. I mean, so much of the testimony now that people are offering saying, Yes, I offered a change -- I noticed a change in time in Tamerlan and Zubeidat, you know, the government could argue at the end of the day, Well, gee, that's what people say now but it's colored by hindsight when, in fact, what we have is contemporaneous reports of the process in real time. And that is powerful corroboration.
Sorry. I didn't mean to take that away from you, David.
MR. BRUCK: No. And this goes back to the January text from Zubeidat to her former son-in-law in which she makes -- you cannot read this without seeing her as having radicalized, as having a sort of jihadist mindset on her own, of being sympathetic with -- fearful and yet sympathetic with what she said Tamerlan is doing. This is at a time when the defendant was 17 years old and still in high school. So it is tremendously powerful evidence.
The government says, Well, we don't know what that is. We just got that from the Russian government and it could be completely bogus. It is characteristic of her. It even has her odd, quirky punctuation in it. But these things are all of the peeps. They get this -- the Russian government, apparently -- it's not -- we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is certainly more likely than not that this is an authentic text, was probably handed over by a nervous family member for all we know, to the Russian government, and then the U.S. government was not given the text originally but they were notified -- as we understand all the investigative reports that have followed since, they were notified to check these people out. They did. And the fact that they did corroborates the fact that there was some level of credibility or -- to this initial text.
So all of these things link together, and if you cut them all out it leaves us with the -- it creates the false impression that, as Ms. Conrad said, that it's all just hindsight, and at the time nobody actually saw anything -- there was no evidence of anything. It's not true and this shows it.
And, you know, of course there's a danger in any piece of evidence maybe the jury will take it wrong, but this goes to the core of our story and it just seems so -- and given the defendant's age at the time and the power of the mother and the older brother and all of that put together, the mere fact that the FBI followed up, got this tip, later on we get the actual text that started the process in motion. The government can say, Well, we don't really know what that is. It's not corroborated. That's grist for the mill, but that's not relevance; that's the weight.
MS. CONRAD: May I just add one thing to that? If there really is an issue about the circumstances under which this text was required and so forth, all we have is the government's representation that this was acquired afterwards. It seems to me that the Court should have a hearing, and outside of the hearing of the jury, to determine any preliminary issues of reliability and the circumstances. But we have no independent knowledge of that.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, the government objects to any evidence of the Russian communication in 2011 notifying the -- or asking -- really requesting that the American government investigate Tamerlan Tsarnaev for two reasons: First, it's unreliable. The government also received an official communication from the Russian government no different from this one that several members of the defense team had traveled to Russia, had misrepresented their purpose for being there, had informed people who they were interviewing that they were FBI agents, and based on all of that, they were expelled from Russia.
There was no difference in the quantum of reliability between this one thing that was received in 2011 and what the defense adamantly claims is utterly inaccurate, unreliable and untrustworthy evidence. There's simply no foundation for this, where this came from.
As the defense attorneys have themselves repeatedly claimed in connection with this case, and both intrajudicially and extrajudicially, the Russians are suspicious of the Chechens. They view all Chechens as terrorists and so on. There is -- are indicia of unreliability attached to this and no way to test its reliability.
But even more important, this communication -- basically what would come into evidence is there was a content list communication from the Russian government saying, We suspect that these people are radicals and might be terrorists. Please go investigate them. It is left to the jury entirely to speculate what well of evidence might have prompted the Russian government to send such an official communication to the United States government.
The jury knows absolutely nothing about how intelligence agencies function, about what threshold of suspicion must be crossed or communication like that to come our way, whether it represents knowledge on somebody's part, whether it's, you know, pure speculation on their part. It is really a quintessential example of the kind of evidence that has the potential to confuse and mislead the jury and waste a lot of their time in trying to figure out what could possibly have prompted this.
Its probative value, on the other hand, is low primarily because it's cumulative of a great deal of other evidence that the defense is going to put in that Tamerlan Tsarnaev radicalized at a certain time and in a certain way. These Dolakov 302s, the Vakhabov 302s, they are at least more reliable in the sense that there are actual identified people and we have their actual words here as opposed to just guessing at what the information was.
It is indeed the case that after the marathon bombing, in response to a follow-up request from the American government, the Russian government provided these two things: What purports to be an email between Zubeidat Tsarnaev and one of her son-in-laws -- her former son-in-laws -- and what purports to be this conversation between Mr. Kartashov and Zubeidat Tsarnaev. But again, we have absolutely no idea what the provenance of these are, whether they're accurate, whether they're reliable, whether they were invented in order to justify the warning that had previously been given, whether they're all the evidence, whether they're a fraction of the evidence, whether they're really evidence at all.
It's not the kind of information on which a jury that is being asked to decide whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is sufficiently more culpable than other murderers and should be put to death, this kind of thing which is so remote from the considerations that really need to weigh significantly in their minds should not be brought in. It's simply too much -- it's too much off to the side, it's too unreliable, it's too distracting for the jury, it opens up too many cans of worms and it's unnecessary.
MR. BRUCK: One thing that has to be corrected is that there may be a fair amount of evidence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev radicalized, but there is very little hard evidence that we can point to, or documentary evidence, that the mother radicalized. And that is a very important part of the story. This text from her really is extremely revealing and it's not cumulative to anything else. So if we don't have that, we're really -- we're really in a hole.
The government is free to point out that its provenance is uncertain. It has indicia of being -- it is stylistically this sort of over-the-top crazy style that she writes here. The content is unusual because she's much more revealing than in most of her emails -- than any of her other emails or texts.
This business about it's just like the report of -- the text from her is the most critical thing --
THE COURT: I understand all of that. I want to come back now to the Dolakov documents. So this all emanates from that single sentence?
MR. BRUCK: Yes, it does.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else on that -- in the rest of this document?
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: I just want to identify what the scope of the controversy is.
MR. WEINREB: So on page 4 of 8, the next page, the -- it's a little hard for me to tell because of the blackout.
MS. CONRAD: It's Dolakov thought that Tamerlan was being followed by the FBI because of his views which explains why --
MR. WEINREB: Yeah, if I could just identify where on the document.
MS. CONRAD: Oh, sorry.
MR. WEINREB: There's a paragraph that begins, "In January 2013." It's the last sentence of that paragraph.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?
MR. WEINREB: Nothing else in that document. There is another Dolakov document.
MR. BRUCK: I think we have one thing to add given the ground rules that have been laid out about opinion, which is at the bottom of page 5 Dolakov offers the opinion that he had always thought it odd how close they were and says that in their culture older and younger brothers are not that close and do not hang around together. You know, if we're going to be cutting out opinion, let's cut that.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think so.
MR. WEINREB: Then I think we should also cut the next one, the next full paragraph on 36.
THE COURT: Yeah, fine. Well --
MR. WEINREB: Leave "Tamerlan" --
THE COURT: -- at least the first sentence.
MS. CONRAD: We can take the whole paragraph out. It doesn't really --
MR. WEINREB: Either one.
THE COURT: Right. Right.
MR. WEINREB: And then there's another Dolakov 302 which is dated May 21st, 2013, if you'd be so kind to give me the exhibit number.
MS. CONRAD: Which one?
THE COURT: 3271A.
MR. WEINREB: 3271A.
MS. CONRAD: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So the record is clear.
Again, this is being offered for entirely one paragraph, and we object to one line in the paragraph which is the second from the bottom, "Dolakov advised that Jahar did not really speak when he was with his brother Tamerlan." And we object to that because it's stated generally, as a general proposition about the two of them when they're together, but Dolakov had absolutely no foundation for making that. He had only met Jahar once.
MS. CONRAD: But he says that.
MR. WEINREB: I admit he does say it, but I believe the way the sentence is phrased, that is precisely the kind of thing where the government would absolutely on cross-examination make sure that the witness clarified that he had no basis for saying something like that other than what happened in the gym, and then we would try to establish just what a short time they were together in the gym and whether they were occupied doing other things and whether he was paying attention to what Dzhokhar was doing all the time. It's just not fair.
MS. CONRAD: They have all that in the document. The document talks about what they did while they were at the gym.
MR. BRUCK: And they also have on video parts of it.
MS. CONRAD: Right. But he said --
THE COURT: All right. I think that one can stay in, in the context where it says he only saw him that one time.
MR. BRUCK: You said it can stay in?
THE COURT: Can.
MS. CONRAD: Yes. I don't think you had any objections on 3269, according to my notes, which is the June 11th.
MR. WEINREB: That's right. We had no objection to that one.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Just -- I don't want to belabor the earlier argument, I just want to add one thing to the record in response to Mr. Bruck's statement about Zubeidat's radicalization -- purported radicalization. She's an available witness to the defense, as far as we know, and until -- unless it's shown otherwise, I don't think that anything she had written ought to be admitted into evidence.
MS. CONRAD: She has an outstanding warrant. It's not clear she would be allowed into the country.
MR. WEINREB: She would be allowed into the country to testify.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sure.
MR. WEINREB: She's a U.S. citizen. She doesn't need permission to come into the country.
MS. CONRAD: I just do also want to add with respect to this whole thing about the Russian information, I mean, you know, looking at the Intelligence Community record and so forth, Tamerlan was placed on the terrorist watch list.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. I want to solve these documents because we have a jury sitting there and they're going to get read to for a while. I want to get to it, okay?
MS. CONRAD: Okay. Right. I get it.
THE COURT: And so we, I think, indicated at the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6 those two short paragraphs will come out. I think just to move things along, we should take out the sentence the government objects to about the FBI. That doesn't defeat the rest of your argument. We'll deal with that in other respects and move on so we could get this read to the jury. It's the -- I guess it's the second sentence of the third paragraph on page 3.
MS. CONRAD: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. The third sentence.
MS. CONRAD: Yeah, I got it.
THE COURT: That's just to move us off the dime here.
MS. CONRAD: And also on the following page, on page 4, Dolakov thought that Tamerlan was being followed by the FBI?
THE COURT: Let me look at that again. Yes, yes. The last line, yes. I think then you can get the Dolakov stuff in.
MS. CONRAD: Judge, your Honor has said at sidebar that you were going to tell the jury that, you know, because that these are witnesses or these people are not subject to cross-examination, they should give it less weight or whatever you were going to say. I think if you're going to say anything like that, it shouldn't come now; it should come in the final instructions just as it would, for example, if someone were testifying pursuant to a plea agreement or had gotten some kind of consideration. That instruction is not generally given at the time the person testifies; it is given at the end of the case.
THE COURT: Sometimes it's given both. I'm going to do it now.
MS. CONRAD: Well --
THE COURT: I'll do it again, actually.
MS. CONRAD: -- I emailed some cases on the Fifth Amendment point. I mean, by analogy one of them was Bartelho and the other one was Gary, both First Circuit. United States versus Gary and United States versus Bartelho. The fact that a witness takes the fifth as to a collateral matter does not make their testimony inadmissible. I think it's by analogy here.
THE COURT: Yeah, I don't think the cases are on point. This is a unique circumstance again, by nature of this proceeding. It would be justifiable to refuse to accept the document at all. I'm proposing to relax it so you could have the benefit of the document, but attaching to that the condition that the jury understand that the reason the witness isn't saying this on the stand subject to cross-examination is because he refuses to. I won't say it that bluntly. But I think if they have otherwise inadmissible evidence, they should understand a little bit about the context, that's all. I just think it's a balancing ruling.
MS. CLARKE: And so the Court remembers that Dolakov isn't refusing. We just can't find him.
THE COURT: Right. No, this is Vakhabov. This is Vakhabov.
MS. CONRAD: I might need a couple of minutes just to make the additional redactions.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: I know. I just don't want to accidentally have it flash up on the screen and see something we don't want to see.
(The proceedings adjourned at 2:47 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: All rise for the Court.
(The Court enters the courtroom at 2:51 p.m.)
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
MR. WEINREB: Ms. Conrad mentioned on the way out that they intend to actually put these redacted documents into evidence, put them up on the screen and send them back with the jury. We object to that. That's not proper. They can be read to the jury like any other witness's testimony, but we don't normally put written copies of witnesses' testimony into evidence just like their transcripts don't go into evidence. Moreover --
THE COURT: I think that's right. But just to get it going, we will not do it now, we can always add it later, but right now they'll just get read.
MS. CONRAD: Well, Judge, it seems to me then they're being treated more as chalks. I mean, people put documents in all the time. You put in letters, you put in emails, you put in --
THE COURT: I want to get the reading done. You can fight about whether they go in --
MS. CONRAD: But we can't have it up on the screen so the jury's just going to hear somebody read? That's going to be a really ineffective presentation. At least it should be up on screen while she's reading. Some people don't hear that well, they don't take notes as quickly. I mean, it's an exhibit.
MR. WEINREB: I do not believe --
MS. CONRAD: The Court has ruled --
MR. WEINREB: -- the document with all sorts of redactions in it, inviting the jury to speculate about why they were redacted, what was being withheld from them should be put in front of them. It's already an unusual procedure to allow these to be read to the jury in the first place. Adding this element of mystery about what parts are being withheld from them is not conducive to their --
MS. CONRAD: I can't imagine why the government --
THE COURT: I think that's right. They have notebooks. They can jot their notes down. They'll just read it.
MS. CONRAD: Can I have it on the screen for my witness who does not have it in front of her?
THE COURT: Yeah, that's fine. That's fine.
(In open court:)
COURT CLERK: All rise for the jury.
(The jury enters the courtroom at 2:54 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: Be seated.
MS. CONRAD: The defense calls Sonya Petri who's --
THE COURT: Ms. Petri is only a reader. I don't know that she needs to be sworn.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. Well, I'm going to ask her a few preliminary foundation questions, so...
COURT CLERK: All right.