In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial book - NY Mag

EDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 11 – Thomas Barrack and Matthew Grimes, indicted for illegal lobbying for the United Arab Emirates, were arraigned on July 26, 2021 before U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Magistrate Judge Sanket Bulsara. Inner City Press live tweeted it here (and podcast here)

On October 4, FBI Special Agent Liz Sidaros was still on the stand, but now for cross examination.  Barrack's lawyer asked her what Instagram is, then emphasized that neither Malik nor Barrack were sneaking around.  He showed Barrack's disclosure to the US State Department when he applied for the US diplomatic job, as Rex Tillerson testified on October 3. Then Colony Capital marketing materials, including Barrack's links withe First Republic Bank and others.

On Sunday October 9, Judge Cogan tightened the advance notice of witnesses period from four to three days: "ORDER granting in part and denying in part [298] Motion in Limine as to Thomas Joseph Barrack (2), Matthew Grimes (3). The Government is required to disclose its anticipated witnesses for Tuesday and Wednesday today consistent with the Court's oral ruling. Thereafter, the parties are to disclose a list of anticipated witnesses 3 days in advance. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 10/8/2022."

Early on October 11 with the trial set to resume, Judge Cogan denied the US' motion in limine to allow testimony about FARA, saying among other things it could confuse the jury about the different duty under charged Section 951: "The Government’s [298] motion in limine to admit testimony from Heather Hunt is denied. The limited probative value of this testimony is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact of confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The proffered testimony is simply too far removed from the pertinent issues to offer any meaningful probative value. Defendants are charged with violating Section 951, not FARA. While Section 951’s notification requirement can be satisfied by registering under FARA, an individual can also provide notice under Section 951 by mailing or faxing a form to the Attorney General. See 28 C.F.R. § 73.3(a). Hunt’s testimony that defendants would have been required to register under FARA had they provided notice under Section 951 and that they would have suffered “downstream” effects from registering under FARA is also highly speculative. As defendants point out, a FARA registrant is not automatically barred from political advocacy or TV appearances. Although the government and the public might have been informed about defendants’ alleged ties to the UAE had defendants been required to register, the real-world" - full order on Patreon here.

Analysis: Because of the possibility of (success) appeal to any conviction under Section 951, on a claim that the jurors confused it with FARA, the attempt is made to keep FARA out of testimony as much as possible. But what about the jury instructions? Watch this site.

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com