In Trial
of Tom Barrack As UAE
Agent Judge Allows In Some
Govt Exhibits, Some Not
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
book
BBC -
Honduras
- CIA
Trial book - NY
Mag
EDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 12 –
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."
Docketed
on October
11 with the
trial resuming,
Judge Cogan ruled
"The
Government’s
[271/272]
request to
exclude
certain
evidence as
inadmissible
hearsay is
denied in part
and granted in
part.1
a. BX 170 and
BX 183 are
admissible for
the
non-hearsay
purpose of
demonstrating
the nature of
the
relationship
between
Barrack and Al
Malik.
[FN1
The Court
resolved other
issues raised
in the motion
related to
defendants’
use of certain
exhibits on
crossexamination
in an oral
ruling on
October 3,
2022.]
b. BX
180 is
admissible for
the
non-hearsay
purpose of
showing that
Gibbs
forwarded the
Italian Prime
Minister’s
contact
information to
then
President-elect
Trump’s
secretary. c.
GE 22 is
admissible to
show Grimes’
state of mind
as an
“endlessly
loyal servant”
of Barrack.
d. GE
28 and GE 29
are admissible
as business
records. e. GE
61 is
admissible so
long as
defendants
establish
authenticity.
f. GE 75 is
admissible
because
Grimes’
command to
“send along –
per TJB” is
not hearsay.
See Cameron v.
New York City
Dep’t of
Educ., No. 15-
cv-9900, 2018
WL 1027710, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 21, 2018)
(“In general,
commands are
not hearsay
unless they
are used to
prove the
truth of an
implicit
assertion.”).
g. GE 92A and
GE 92B are
admissible to
show the state
of mind of the
declarant in
planning the
referenced
dinner. h. GE
104 is
admissible, if
not already
admitted, to
show the state
of mind of
defendants and
the
relationship
between them.
i. GE 134, GE
136, and GE
137 are
admissible, if
not already
admitted, as
non-hearsay
commands and
to show the
nature of the
relationship
between
defendants."
On
FARA, 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.
Watch
this site -
and this Sept
30 vlog,
and Twitter
Space here. Oct
4 vlog here.
***
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
|