All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 23, 2022 - Depositions & Trials
01:33:39
Watch Live: Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Connecticut Trial Day Eight
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Sounds of the police* *Sounds of the police* *Sounds of the police* his 25 33 36 We walk 34 36
restaurant slew 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 37 32 37 38 what?
he came in about 8 o'clock.
well, I think we got there about 20 hours ago.
well, we got here at 4:30, we got here at 4:30, 4:40, but the 4:40, but the car was in.
I'm back right here.
Breakfast.
I'm back.
Hey, let's.
Hey, everybody.
How's it going?
Good, happy, good, happy.
I'm back.
I'm back.
Hey, everybody.
How's it going?
Good, happy, good, happy.
Good, happy, good.
Everybody enjoying the show trial?
What do you expect today in court?
Well, again, this isn't really court.
This is a show trial.
Judges aren't supposed to find you liable or guilty and not let you put on evidence.
So you notice, they can put on all their fake evidence and all their lies, almost all of their lies, and then I can't even respond or defend myself.
But they know the public still thinks we need trials, so they're using a trial and it damages and acting like it's a regular trial.
So basically, it'd be like a boxing match where one guy has his arms tied behind his back and a gag in his mouth.
So this is totally rigged.
It's an absolute total fraud.
We gave them all of the discovery they wanted over four years.
They found nothing there that showed that we lied about Sandy Hook or that we premeditatedly did anything.
And so they found Me guilty, the judge did, and now they're having their show trial, and they've made up all this imaginary money I have when I'm in bankruptcy and I'm almost personally out of money.
And so it doesn't matter if they do a $500 billion verdict, a $10 billion verdict, a $50 billion verdict.
You can't get blood out of the stone.
You can't get blood out of these granite steps right here.
And so they admit, the Democratic Party admits they're running this.
And these plaintiff's lawyers and the plaintiff's lawyers in Texas said, we want to take down Alex Jones, we want to take him out, we want him off the air.
This is not about these families.
They are using these families as pawns.
And they're claiming, I made money off Sandy Hook, but they have no proof of that.
When this very law firm got $73 million from Remington, when Adam Lanza, the guy that killed the kids, mother bought the gun legally, and then he used that gun she bought to kill her.
And then he used that gun to kill those children and other people.
Think about that.
They made $73 million.
Many of these parents have gotten that money.
And now, now they don't just want the Second Amendment.
Now they want the First Amendment.
So I feel sorry for the parents being used as pawns in this whole thing.
Do you think you're making arguments for real, Pat?
I mean they heard you yesterday.
I got the two.
Here they go.
I got the two.
Here we go.
I got the two.
Here we go.
Okay Yeah, I think, I think, right?
Yeah, I think, right?
oh oh oh oh oh oh oh Oh Oh
Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh I
know Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh yeah yeah yeah
yeah yeah yeah
yeah yeah yeah
yeah yeah yeah yeah
yeah yeah I thought...
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, not exactly.
It doesn't exist in an hour.
We're pretty much trying to do it.
I thought it was a good idea.
You've done all of that work and then somebody comes in and asks.
Yeah.
Hey Jerry.
Alex is here.
Cool.
Can you, um...
You, um...
Yeah.
Yeah.
Good.
This is the name of church.
Oh, no, I can't even find that.
I'm sorry.
This is the name of church.
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
but so so
This is the name of church.
yeah so
so so
This is the name of church.
so so so so so
This is the name of church.
so so
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
so yes I know we gotta we gotta hey congratulations hey great to you
This is the name of church.
so so
This is the name of church.
so so so
This is the name of church.
so so so
This is the name of church.
so so so so so
This is the name of church.
so so
This is the name of church.
so so so so
This is the name of church.
so so
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
so so so so so
This is the name of church.
so so so
This is the name of church.
so so
This is the name of church.
This is the name of church.
so hey what up what up very different seasons You're like, ready for winter?
I asked Alexa, I said, Alexa, what's the weather going to be at 4:30?
She told me 43.
So I said, well, you know what?
It's about time to keep bundle up.
It's cold right now.
I kind of got something time.
Maybe you got a little jacket, though.
You'll be fine.
I guess you'll be better because you're in the day.
But I dress for whatever it says it's going to be at 4:35 o'clock in the morning.
That's the bulk of my time out there. - Oh, no. - Not bad.
It's definitely snippy.
Yeah, that's right.
I got two.
Hey, if you can't put on one, you don't have to.
That's right.
I'm really in the house.
Great checkers.
Yes, you were able to get it?
Amazing.
Tom is coming today actually.
But I'm the only one that covers sports, so I'll just hold it down.
Okay, and I don't know, you took literally this one in the middle.
He's got a couple of cars.
I think that there's already a car game.
It's a great road.
Both cars are really good.
Oh beautiful, so beautiful.
Thank you.
There's Courtney!
How's it going?
Good, I literally got it.
Thanks for the high school.
I love you!
Okay, so listen, you should travel to the top of the car to anybody and you can't I'm like I'm like the mother-in-law day I think Pyle was like, what are you doing?
My eyeliner pencil needed sharpening?
My letter- That's so intense!
Yeah, Tim was doing the same thing at Austin right now Yeah, I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know that's about the same thing I know I know I know I know I know That's so cool I love it I love it
It's like a lot of quiet I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know Okay Are you getting here?
Yeah, yeah, I'll be getting here Bye!
I might have to like steal that jacket or something Bye!
Thank you.
/ R свarer
SPL SPL
Senator R свarer R свarer R свarer R свarer R свarer R свar R свar R свar
Are you working?
We're pouring here live from downtown Waterbury.
*laughs* *gunshot* *gunshot* *gunshot* *gunshot* Oh yeah!
*gunshot* BB 5 BB 5 That must be replaced as well Cool, n if not If you are looking for photo cube Something is cool A good disposition The infranceial Any immune system
Rekha It's not just that
Yeah, man.
I'm happy.
Yeah, man.
I know what it is, but I don't know what it is.
I know.
Hi.
I know.
I am just going to stay about here.
Make sure you bring yourself a top.
A top coming?
Yeah.
Okay.
And then you're a walker.
And then head back.
Until then, I just work on the tangles.
Work on the tangles.
I don't know why.
I have a nice little place.
So much more in it.
I have a nice little place.
I have a nice little place.
Good morning, Marshal.
Good morning, everyone.
Please be seated.
Good morning, Your Honor.
For the record, this is the Lackarty v.
Jones matters.
Week two, day eight.
If Council could please identify themselves for the record.
Good morning, Your Honor.
I'm joined by Alamo Sterling and Josh Kassler.
Good morning, Judge Jeanette, and Kevin Smith.
Last chance of the young people in the young's receipt system.
Good morning.
And just I want to mention, as I try to do every morning, in accordance with judicial judge policy, only those entities who have been specifically authorized to film or record or photograph the proceedings are allowed to do only those entities who have been specifically authorized to film or Anyone else who attempts to do so will have their device or devices confiscated and they will be removed from the courtroom.
Okay, so I understand there are some housekeeping issues.
There are, Judge.
And I believe this may catch my adversaries that my colleagues, by surprise, are adversaries only professionally.
And that is as follows.
We are called Mr. Jones and our case as chief, and therefore are going to waive our right to cross the cam and implications through strategic decisions based on our assessment of what occurred My understanding is that we are ahead of schedule in this case and that Mr. Jones will appear next week.
I believe we've reached an agreement that I may be able to call him out of turn, but only if the plaintiffs have called all of their experts.
So he will be here Wednesday or Thursday or Wednesday and Thursday of next week.
We think that this will streamline the proceeding, lower the temperature level and help the I just remember we have Friday off.
Thank you for reminding me.
And we've also completed our cross-examination with Mr. Watts.
I'm on review of the notes.
I have what I need to argue our case.
So on that basis, I believe the plaintiffs may Thank you, Attorney Patz.
Attorney Matty?
Yes, Your Honor.
So we had planned for a longer day today with Mr. Jones and weren't sure whether we were going to get to the redirect of Mr. Watts.
It is possible that there may be no redirect, there certainly will be none today, but what we would like to Yeah, so on the redirect of Mr. Watts, we are still considering whether in light of this there will be a redirect.
It certainly won't be today.
But we would like some time to figure out what we're going to do with the rest of the day.
We will be presenting evidence today.
If we have until 1130 to consider that, we'd appreciate it.
That's not a problem.
Attorney Paddock?
One of the best things is to round out the record.
I told Attorney Paddock and his team that I I don't want to be accused of gamesmanship in this regard.
I don't believe I have in my pocket a right to cross-examine Mr. Jones within the scope of the direct when I call him in my case in chief.
So I want to make clear that I understand that I'm forfeiting that right by this strategic decision.
Thank you for clarifying that.
Okay.
We have one new filing this morning.
We're requesting a charge in connection with yesterday's testimony.
I just gave that to Attorney Pattis this morning.
My understanding is he'd like some time to look at it.
I just wanted to raise that with the court because that would be something that hopefully we could address later today.
Okay.
Is it something you want to share with the court now or after Attorney Pat?
Is it filing file?
Yes.
Yes, Your Honor.
Okay.
I checked the file early this morning, but I haven't checked since.
Right at about 9 o'clock.
Okay.
All right.
Anything else before we recess until 1130?
No.
Attorney May.
So I think the plan would be, and we'll tell our staff, they'll all take their...
Morning breaks and we should be able to then go right from 1130 to 1 and then we plan on having a pretty full afternoon.
That's our hope Your Honor.
Okay so we are in recess then until 1130. Four different days, or two depositions split into two days each.
So I gave these lawyers four depositions, they've got three Texas depositions, they have hundreds of thousands of emails, we did the searches for the text messages, and because there was no evidence of what they claimed I did, premeditatedly saying Sandy Hook didn't have to make money,
which was just preposterous, because we barely ever even hardly covered it, because their lie You know, it's a famous saying.
It's better that ten guilty men go to prison than one innocent man go to jail.
And I'm not perfect.
And I made mistakes.
I apologize many times.
But imagine the precedent-setting case where they're weaponizing the judiciary and giving people defaults after they comply with excruciating discovery so you then can't defend yourself and then use the very evidence you gave them against you, but then you can't even talk about that evidence.
So this is basically as rigged as With Remington.
They've won a bunch of other big lawsuits for these families.
And I would imagine in 30 years, this law firm will be suing people with the Sandy Hook families.
I mean, some of their great-great-grandchildren may be suing people over this.
They have sued basically dozens and dozens of different organizations and groups, and it never, never ends.
When the real person that killed the children was Adam Lanza.
People don't know Adam Lanza.
Most people don't know Adam Lanza.
When people walk up to me and say, "You shouldn't be covering Sandy Hook," I haven't talked about it in years.
I've said it happened years ago.
I apologize, four or five years ago.
They say, "Stop talking about it.
Stop making money on it." It's not me making money.
They make $73 million off of this.
And now they've got these huge judgments in Texas against me.
It's absolutely preposterous.
Alex, how do you feel about your testimony yesterday?
Do you feel like sharing that with us?
Well, the main reason I'm not testifying today with my defense lawyer is because there's no need.
Chris Maddy completely destroyed himself.
He put up a bunch of twisted disinformation and lies.
I was barred from even defending myself, and so I had to just sit there while he lied and lied and lied.
Then he had this big Perry Mason moment where he blew up and started screaming at me.
Wouldn't be quiet when the judge said, so she couldn't sanction me because she wasn't willing to sanction him.
Norm Pattis, my lawyer, told me this morning, if he'd have done what Chris Maddy did, he would have been in jail guaranteed.
So Chris Maddy already has his trial rig.
He already has it where I can't put on evidence and then he screams at me for five minutes and all I do is respond and say you're an ambulance chaser and you're a despicable person right back to him while he pretends that I'm the devil.
It's absolutely disgusting and he continues to lie over and over again and say you said the names of all these people.
No, I haven't.
I acknowledge I talked about Robbie Parker and said Major spending bills for
school safety and security.
And it's these very senators and these very law firms.
And I'll tell you why.
Because they know there's going to be more mass shootings.
And they're going to line their pockets from the money that comes from that.
These very law firms are involved in Texas and Uvalde, where the police stood down for 77 minutes and put hand sanitizer on while kids were getting killed.
Alex, super quick.
What do you expect from your testimony next week when it's your lawyer and your Weaponize the judiciary.
The deep state is going after all their political enemies and opponents and trying the lawfare to bankrupt them or put them in prison.
And this is extremely dangerous.
We're supposed to land the free home of the brave and they're using these dead children not just to try to get rid of the second amendment but now the first amendment.
Go ahead ma'am.
Oh, I was just asking what if your lawyers tell you about these have free decisions that they have to have the end of that?
Well, I don't want to specifically get into attorney-client privilege type stuff but in Norm Pattis' words, Chris Matty, crap the bet.
And his legal colleagues all over the state, including Democrats and Republicans, judges, you name it, have chimed in and said, my God, that was the most disgusting thing they've probably ever seen.
And in a case they thought they were sure to win, he may have lost the case for them.
And I can tell you, Matty's father, who's a famous lawyer, shoot him out and screamed at him in there yesterday after what he did.
I mean, he absolutely got completely out of control, trying to piss me off to get out of control, and I didn't get out of control.
And so we're just going to let him throw more fits in there, and then he'll get up there, and Josh Koskopf will start crying, and then look at the jury and go cry, cry, and try to get a big cry fest going in there because they want to suck money out of people.
The good news is I don't have hardly any money, despite what they lie about in the press, okay?
You know, if I have gross sales of $6 million a year, but then I have all this crew and all this advertising and all the legal fees, and I get paid a couple million dollars a year, and after I pay taxes, and after I pay for everything else, I am almost completely out of money.
So it's a joke.
I'm in bankruptcy.
And the judge barred me from saying that.
So it's just ridiculous.
Listen, I came from Access TV. I came from local talk radio.
I was super happy when I was living in $100,000.
I love it.
Money means absolutely nothing to me.
I have raised all this money to build an independent media system with my own satellite uplinks, my own reporters, my own crews, and we try to tell the truth.
We've broken thousands of big stories, and we've gotten dozens of stories wrong.
But I'm proud of our record.
I'm proud of Infowars.com. - Are you afraid that the statements you came out to do might be used to prevent you inside? - Am I afraid that statements I say here may be used against me inside?
No, I'm telling the truth here, okay?
And plus, everything I'm saying here, I'm barred by the judge from saying in there.
So she can't violate, here's a little secret, why Maddie went out to bed last night.
Everything he tried to say to me was barred by the judge.
And my lawyer would get up and say, you have barred Mr. Jones from talking about these eight things.
So how now can you let Maddie ask him a question deliberately trying to hold him in contempt?
And she said criminal contempt for the lawyers and me, including the family's lawyers.
So this judge is angry.
This judge is pissed off because she lost control of the courtroom, not because of me.
I did my best being barred to basically defend myself, but by the other side.
So this is a disaster for Inside, I'm trying to have a nice demeanor and a nice etiquette and talk to people and not act like Chris Maddy who grabbed the bed.
Anything else?
What do you want the jury to do?
What do you want them to do?
I mean, I basically barred being able to talk.
I could not be a jury, I would say, for heaven's sake, go ask him, you know, research history and understand how dangerous it is when they'll pick one event of speech that they can say is hurtful and then use that to set the precedent to knock over all the dominoes and never find a street to be joined.
And the Democratic Party and the deep state and a lot of Republican leaders as well, there's a lot of bad Republicans, have said in this case and the Texas case, we want to shut Alex We want to silence him.
We want to take this platform and never let him be heard from him.
And then we want to use this tactic against all the other independent media.
That is incredibly dangerous, and I want to warn the corporate media and the establishment.
You take down one person, ten more pop up in their place.
That's what's happening.
People are hungry for real, independent analysis and My show is just a talk radio show that's on TV. Just like Don Imus or just like, you know, Howard Stern did.
Except I'm a populist, conservative, nationalist, patriot, Christian.
And I love everybody of every race, color, and creed.
And so my show is popular because there's a hunger for populism.
There's a hunger for candor.
There's a hunger for rawness.
There's a hunger for unfiltered.
And if I made mistakes being raw and unfiltered, and I've been a bull in a china shop, you better damn well believe it.
But I'm an American, and I love this country, and I believe in people's free speech.
Whether they're communists, whether they're right-wingers, or whether they're idiot KKK people, whether I agree with their speech, or I hate their speech, I will stand up and fight for their right to have that speech.
So, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
And all over the world, authoritarian systems are taking free speech away.
We're not communist China.
We're not Nazi Germany.
We have to protect everybody's free speech as much as we can, because if we don't protect the free speech, we're going to lose everything.
And they have said on record that their mission is to set up a precedent to shut down free speech in this country, and that is extremely dangerous.
They're trying to gag the average American's right to speak their mind, to say what they want, and to be able to tune in and listen to what they want.
But I'm telling you, there's an explosion in independent media, which is now the dominant mainstream media.
Joe Rogan has 20 times the audience of CNN, conservatively.
At my peak, I had 10 times their audience before I got censored, and now it's going back to that.
Imagine that.
We call CNN mainstream, but Joe Rogan conservatively has 20 times the audience of CNN out of his little office down the road from mine in South Wales.
Think about that.
So we still call him alternative.
The entire dying dinosaur media is a facade.
A lot of local media is But start becoming independent and adding your commentary, your opinion, your analysis of things, and you would be more popular and have more viewers.
Because people are desperately looking for that.
We need a truly diverse spectrum or palette of ideas so that our children and adults can make important decisions about the world we're living in.
Again, the Democrats and these lawyers in Texas and Connecticut have said they want to silence me because they want to silence you.
Any other questions?
Folks are asking me when will I be back next week and in what capacity.
That will be up to the judge.
She'll give me about a day or two's notice.
And so I won't know.
But he was talking to them in the court.
I'm told.
They're thinking Wednesday or Thursday.
I'm not sure.
But again, if I'm not here Wednesday or Thursday, it's because the court changed it, not because I'm afraid to be here.
And again, today, I'm going because I'd rather be able to get up on the stand and actually say a few things.
Instead of today, I'm very limited in what I can say.
It's how the whole legal system works.
Does that answer your question?
All right, any other questions?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can you just again say why you were no one of the Because the plaintiff's lawyers crapped the bed.
The plaintiff's lawyers just got completely out of control.
Any other lawyer would have been arrested.
My lawyer would have been arrested and he screamed for five minutes and ignored what the judge said.
And the judge is very angry, very upset.
And today, my lawyer would only be able to respond Shame
on the judge.
It's very fraudulent.
You've got a lot of use for what you've done in the legal community around the world, not just here because it's so authoritarian.
It's like Venezuela or something that Shea Guevara would, you know, show trial he would put on, something out of North Korea.
It's extremely dangerous.
And now she's being a little bit more friendly, a little bit nicer, just to look like that she's being fair.
But again, look how she let Chris Maddy talk over her, do whatever he wanted, scream when she was telling him to be quiet.
He didn't, because he knows he's the boss.
He knows his dad and Senator Blumenthal and that whole law firm that they've got runs this state.
They're the ambulance chasers that own and run Connecticut.
And they brag about how they're this mafia that is in control of the state.
They own you, they think you're scum, and they're bloodsucking off of you.
And so they wrapped the bed in there yesterday.
They want your free speech.
They want your guns.
They want your whole world.
They want your whole life.
But, at the end of the day, America's waking up to them and the deep state that they will fail.
Anything else?
Everybody get your questions in?
Alright, guys.
Infowars.com.
I like it, I like it.
I like it.
I like it.
Thank you.
I printed out the filing from today.
Should we address that?
We have a preliminary matter before we get to that.
Let's do that first.
Sure.
Your Honor, we were prepared to complete Mr. Jones' testimony today.
We were planning on it.
We expected that that would take a decent part of the day.
We were informed this morning that Mr. Jones is electing not to retake the stand but to return to Texas.
As we were scrambling to figure out what evidence we could present in his absence, which as you can imagine given the nature of our client's testimony is very difficult to do, Mr. Jones was giving a press conference outside the courthouse where he continued his efforts to undermine this trial, attack the court in ad hominem fashion, and make personal attacks against counsel here and our families.
He also spoke at length about issues this court has ruled are inadmissible and not for the jury's consideration, including raising his bankruptcy, a host of political issues, and in addition...
Well, Charlie, imagine, there's no gag order here.
There isn't, but...
And the jury has been instructed by ad nauseum about avoiding media coverage.
I understand, Your Honor.
Honor.
He also, though, called on the jury to do research themselves into issues relating to this case.
So as we were, and the reason I'm raising this, Your Honor, is because as we were considering our evidentiary presentation, this came to our attention, and we started to consider what relief might be appropriate for us to seek.
In light of all this, and in light of our, the unfairness we think, at this point, of forcing us to present evidence and highly important testimony and charge testimony in a way that we weren't planning, we're going to ask for an adjournment today and to return next week.
Can I just – just a couple of things.
Is the adjournment over objection or by agreement?
And then may I ask, the press conference was in the front of the courthouse?
Correct.
Was it when the jury had already reported in so that there was no issue about the jury overhearing a press conference?
It was immediately after we took our most recent recess.
All right.
Ron, do you know if the jurors stayed in the building or not?
Four jurors went out.
Okay.
All right.
Attorney Pettis, maybe, well let me ask you first, do you have any independent knowledge?
Do you disagree or do you have no knowledge about the press conference?
Because my concern, obviously, is that your jurors Are, you know, going in and out of the courthouse.
I mean, I suppose I can canvas them on it, but do you have any concerns?
Or do you disagree with the press conference and the calling on the jury to do research?
I just need to know what to do here.
We don't...
Let me tell you what I know.
I know that Mr. Jones is going to address the press.
I observed from the third floor of this building a gaggle of people.
I couldn't see who was there.
I asked somebody, as Jones speaking, as I overheard audio recording of it from one or more reporters who were listening to it from within the building, but they paid no particular attention to it.
It's my understanding of the law of the case that I and counsel have independent rules, even in the absence, independent obligations, even in the absence of a gag order not to make prejudicial, extrajudicial commentary, and I think all of us have taken pains extrajudicial commentary, and I think all of us have taken pains to do Thank you.
I'm unaware of any gag order as to Mr. Jones.
It's just that, you know, the jurors go in and out of the building If in fact, I don't know, you know, I think that we have a presumption that a properly instructed jury follows the law.
The court tells them every day to report.
The court confirms each day when they arrive that they have not sent a note, thus alerting them to the possibility that they can.
They were alerted that they're be pressed.
They can see for themselves that there is press.
I don't think there's any indication that they have seen something.
I think given what – I credit what Attorney Maddie says.
If he's listened to it, he's heard it.
And I apologize.
Personally, I feel mortified that The families were involved.
I just have no independent knowledge of that.
I mean, I'm moved by it, but I think with respect to the interests I'm defending in this courtroom, I think there's no showing to disturb the jury at this point.
I think a properly instructed jury to presume to follow the law, and there is no gag order, and absent some indication of the jury of the need for a canvass, I think this would just be drawing attention to an issue that may be a non-issue.
Well, I think I will address with them, reiterate this morning, just confirm that they are to continue to obey the orders not to do any independent research.
And I think it might not be a bad idea since some of them did leave during this time to at least give them an opportunity to, I don't know, let Mr. Forer know if they did overhear anything.
You know, I mean, on that note, I will say the jurors who left were escorted by me to the fourth floor of the garage and all took their cars out on stage 3, which forces them to go north.
I don't know where they went after that.
So you think that they did not go near the front They didn't walk near the front.
Alright, well that's reassuring.
Okay.
As to the adjournment I'd love the day off.
I couldn't hear you saying that.
I said I'd love the day off.
But I think we have an agreement that Mr. Jones will be available and can potentially be taken out of turn and that he will be available Wednesday and Thursday, but will not – but I have the right to call him after the presentation if they're all of the experts.
And so I want to make sure that the adjournment doesn't prejudice that because I know we're off next Friday.
We don't anticipate that this will create any significant change in the expected schedule.
So, Your Honor, I did want to say that we, as I mentioned earlier, we are considering whether we should be seeking the relief you've been discussing with Attorney Pattis, and we're going to try and figure that out this afternoon.
And so, I think with that, if the court wants to have the jury back down, I do think the jury should be not only given the normal admonishment about media and press coverage, but also informed about why it is that we're not having an incident, which is that but also informed about why it is that we're not having an incident, which is that Mr. Jones is elected not Well, I think that – I think we probably led them to believe that he was resuming the stand.
And I was wondering if you had some agreed-upon language so that they're not confused or left to wonder.
I'm sure you can come up with a second – Can we do that?
Because we did bring them down, and to address Mr. Watts too, because I think we need to at least let them know and put it on the record.
Why don't you talk to each other?
Your Honor, in terms of the loss issue, I just wanted to let the Court know that we had planned on him resuming his testimony today, and that we had planned that he would resume and be the balance of the day,
so to speak, after Mr. Jones, or maybe at that point I think we were thinking Mr. Jones might have been done yesterday, but he was our planned In discussions with Mr. Pattis, we sort of agreed that if he was going to end his cross of Mr. Watts, we did not feel that it was necessary to bring him back and do a redirect.
That is a decision we would not have made had we known that Mr. Jones was going to, at the last minute, pull out of today's testimony for whatever reason he did so.
But in any event, I just wanted to explain to the court, We did with...
All right, I'm not concerned.
I think that we have an agreement on it, and it's fine.
I just want to make sure the jury is not confused or left to wonder or think, you know, that the cross is going to pick up on another day or...
I want to keep the lines of communication open with my colleagues, and I accept Mr. Cosco's representation.
Last night, the agreement was no one was going to recall Watts.
Mr. Jones followed my advice this morning.
That was my decision.
This agreement as to why Can we have a moment?
Absolutely.
You know, my claim would be that we simply tell the jury that Mr. Jones is Ron.
Okay, so then I would say the follow-up there that the court has learned this one that the police for Jones' council is waiving it right to cross-examination to Jones and as a result of that,
the parties aren't prepared to present additional Testified on direct examination yesterday.
This morning, the application yesterday, the expectation that he will be cross-examined by his counsel this morning.
Mr. Jones has decided not to continue the cross-examination.
No.
I mean, I don't want to cross-examination.
Anything wrong?
I am.
I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.
I am.
Thank you.
I was going to start out with that, with the good news.
Lead off with the good news is what I was going to do that we're ahead of schedule.
Your Honor, we've agreed to the following language.
Mr. Jones testified on direct examination yesterday with the expectation...
Is this written out so, is it legible?
Good luck with that.
I can make it legible.
No, that's all right.
I can just, go ahead.
Mr. Jones has chosen not to...
Let me begin.
Mr. Jones testified on direct examination yesterday with the expectation that his cross-examination would commence today.
This morning...
Or just a little slower.
Yes.
Sorry.
So far, I'm in agreement.
Okay.
This morning the defense decided not to cross-examine him.
As a result of this decision...
- Just hold on. - Yeah. - I'm gonna add in which is their right, okay?
Yes.
So this morning the defense decided not to cross-examine him, which is their right.
Okay.
There's an additional issue.
Thank you.
The next sentence would be, the defense expects to call Mr. Jones in his case next week.
Thank you.
As a result of this decision, there will be no testimony today.
Just no evidence today, is what I'm saying?
Okay.
All right, so I just want to circle back to, do you have any suggestions, Attorney Pattis, on the issue of your client calling on the jury to do research?
Do you know anything about that or do you not even know anything about that?
I know I don't.
I didn't watch the press conference, didn't attend it.
I knew it was taking place.
I knew that Mr. Jones intended to speak to the press.
I didn't script or advise or not advise.
You can imagine that a cautious lawyer might say that his client might not want to, especially after having had some of the disciplinary rulings here.
I just, you know, from the dozens and dozens and dozens of criminal cases I've been involved in, every time I complain about something with the jury, I'm reminded by a court that the properly instructed jury is presumed to follow the law in the absence of some showing that that I'm reminded by a court that the properly instructed jury is presumed to follow I don't think the court should act.
I understand Attorney Maddie's concern.
Frankly, the thing that is most troubling to me about the representations made in court is that counsel and their families were mentioned.
Well, I was going to get to that.
I'm going to do everything on the record on this issue, but the only thing I would say about your prior experience, and I understand that, but this is not the typical case.
I think we can all agree in that this particular defendant has a platform that probably no other clients have had, so it's just the...
Let me just finish.
I cut you off.
I'm sorry.
So it's just I've not been in a situation where a defendant who has a platform like this defendant has had a press conference on the courthouse stairs calling upon the jury to violate If it's true, no, I don't know, I'm just...
I'll accept it as true because I respect Attorney Maddy as a fellow author of the court.
The only other case judge that actually has attracted the amount of personal scorn, death threats, and animosity toward me in Connecticut was the Tony Moreno case One is hostility.
And I had concerns about coverage, especially given some of the out of the jury's presence covered hearings that took place and were televised.
And I would ask the court repeatedly for canvases at the jury to make sure they hadn't seen anything, and that was the answer.
So I would say that while Mr. Jones's platform is sudenrous with respect to its national reach, The hostility is a different issue.
It's just unusual to have someone with a platform that is putting out the message, if it's true and I haven't seen it, encouraging the jurors to violate the oath by doing independent research, and I'm not suggesting.
I think we have a very conscientious jury.
They are here early for Every time they need to return to court.
But my concern is that someone else, they're not watching the news, but someone, their family or their friends, hears that they can do independent research and approaches a juror.
So I just, I'm wondering if you have any suggestions or if you think it's, in your own opinion, no need to do anything.
I'm an advocate.
I don't want to alert them to it.
But on the other hand, Judge, I recognize and respect the court's inherent authority to see that justice is done.
And I believe this is a discretionary call, and I'll defer to court.
I don't believe it's necessary, but I'll defer to court.
Attorney Miley?
I don't know if you have anything to add upon this issue.
And then I just wanted to touch upon, because I was concerned, and I don't have any details at all.
But I just want to make sure we don't have any issues with respect to the families or the lawyers.
We've been down this road before with the lawyers, and it was an unpleasant road to be on.
We don't want to make an issue with that, Your Honor.
I just wanted to...
Well, you may not want to make an issue of it, but this is, at the end of the day, my courtroom and...
I have to accept responsibility.
So if there are issues, I want to know about them.
What I would suggest, Your Honor, We're going to need to do it before the lunch break so I'm happy to take another break to give you all some time to think about it and also we need to address the
issue on the charge unless you've already addressed that.
I don't know about that.
We don't have agreement on that, Your Honor.
We would need to present that.
Okay.
All right.
so do you want I suppose I can bring me the panel down now let them go okay so Ron whenever you're ready and I'll see you soon
thank you
thank
you thank you thank you thank you thank you .
. .
Good morning.
It's still morning.
Good morning, good morning.
Hello everyone.
You can have a seat but don't get too comfortable and I'll tell you why in a minute.
Everyone can be seated.
Council stipulate that our entire panel has returned.
You'll see we're not handing out the notebook, so I have some information to give you.
So let me start off with the good news.
It's always good to leave with the good news.
We're ahead of schedule on the trial.
When we, you know, it's always hard.
It's more of an art than a science, but it's always hard to pinpoint exactly how long the trial is going to go, and I know we told most of you that it could go into late October.
We are actually sort of ahead of schedule, so I can tell you that The case will end at the latest mid-October, so those of you who need to make plans for vacations or work or anything you can plan about that.
Now you will recall yesterday that Mr. Jones testified on direct examination and our expectation was that the cross-examination would commence today.
This morning the defense decided not to cross-examine him, which is their right, and you should not place any blame on anyone for that.
The defense does expect to call Mr. Jones in its case at the end of next week.
So as a result, there is no evidence that's lined up for today.
We have business to do, and we have no evidence to present to you, so we are going to let you go early.
I'm sorry if we had known ahead of time.
of course we would have let you know yesterday so that you could have gone to work or whatever, but I hope that you will continue to be patient with us because all of us are doing the best that we can to make this as efficient and pleasant as possible for all of you.
Now I have a couple important things to say and I know I'm repetitive with this, but it's because it's so vitally, inclusively important.
You're not to do any independent research with respect to anything you've heard.
If anyone in your lives, family, friend, whatever, approaches you and says, you know, you actually can do independent research, I am here to tell you That you may not, and as I said, you can't Google a single name, you can't look anything up, so if you are approached by anyone who suggests, oh, that's not the case, I'm here to tell you that it is, so you do need to follow my instructions that required, and I am actually very confident that you will.
You're a very conscientious jury.
You're here early, so I don't have any worries about that.
It is also rightly important that you continue to avoid Any media coverage, which might not be easy, but if you come upon it, you immediately have to turn the page or turn the channel or swipe the screen or whatever it is that you need to do.
And also, just as importantly, especially on certain days, you're going to see more press than you would normally see, and you might even see some press conferences.
Steer clear, because we do not want you to overhear anything at all That would jeopardize your ability to serve, okay?
So, there were no notes today, which is wonderful.
But if there needs to be a note to Mr. Foro where you were unable to avoid either the media coverage or anything else, that's okay, and we will be prepared to hear it because we do need to know if there are any issues at all, okay?
So, with that, I am going to let you go for the long weekend.
We will pick up with you again next Tuesday.
We're going to start right at 10 o'clock, and we will have a full day.
Again, I apologize for bringing you in today, but hopefully you can enjoy an early start to the weekend, and hopefully the weather is going to be nice this weekend.
Is it cool?
Yeah, it was chilly today.
All right, folks, so we are going to stay on the record.
We're going to let you go, and we will see you Tuesday, okay?
Stay safe.
So
what do you need, like 15 minutes? - Your Honor, if we could be serious.
If we could, would be to take up the issues that concern the press conference, which we need to talk about.
So we need to go on break to do that.
And the charge we could take up this afternoon if we have time, but we could also take it up Tuesday.
Now that we're not going to be in session this afternoon, we're going to deal with all our issues before lunch.
I'm sure that'll give everybody opportunity to get back to their offices and do what they need to do.
I'm going back to my office.
Beg your pardon?
I'm not going back.
Okay, well, wherever you're going.
All right, so we have to discuss the issue about the press conference?
Is that what you want?
What we'd like to do is take some time.
We need to talk internally about how we're going to respond to that.
Is it something that the court needs to be involved in?
This discussion?
No.
No, I mean, after your discussion, what is the end result here that we're looking for?
Or you want to talk about it?
We don't know yet.
We don't know yet.
Since we may be seeking relief, we wouldn't...
Is it something that you have that you can share with Attorney Patis?
Not yet, Your Honor.
We're responding to things that are happening, you know, in real time.
So we need a bit more time to figure that out.
Okay.
So it's 12 o'clock.
Do you want to come back at 1230?
Does that sound like a plan?
Yes.
Okay.
We'll see you at 1230.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Good afternoon.
Okay.
Your Honor, during the break, we submitted to the court the law and crime URL for Mr. Jones' press conference that took place outside the courthouse.
▲
Export Selection