Ed.--I've posted some of this before, but it bears repeating.This is taken directly from the text of my account and can also be taken as an assertion of intellectual property (the bracketing text and the edit of the transcript). You do not own it. Any copying requires a request as well as citation, no exceptions, and I will come after major offenders in a court of law, bank on it. This applies to everything I have ever generated on this site as well as outside of it.This exchange was never reported by the mainstream press for doctrinal purposes."From day three (April 9, 2008) in the racketeering trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, an exchange for the ages that would serve as a fine example for law school students in the Anglo-American sphere, and which came towards the end of a long day of endlessly banal testimony:
Q [AUSA Daniel P. Butler]. And did you compare the tax returns to the bank records for Ms. Palfrey?A. Yes.Q. And what did that show?A. The comparison of the bank records for this year, 2002, show that there was a greater amount of gross receipts than was reported on this line.MR. BURTON: Can we approach, Your Honor?THE COURT: Yes.(BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)MR. BURTON: I don't know where this is going.MR. BUTLER: I'm not going to any tax discrepancy, or anything to that effect.THE COURT: You just saddled her with basically what is false reporting.
MR. BUTLER: Well, I don't think it's gone that far [Page break] yet, Your Honor. I'm not going any further with this line of inquiry.THE COURT: Well, now you've put the defense in the position where they have to respond to this. How are they going to do that?MR. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, that was not the intent of my question, but I appreciate what the Court is saying.THE COURT: What was the intent of the question?MR. BUTLER: My intent of the question, Your Honor, was directed at the gross receipts that were deposited into this and comparing it with the bank records that we have. It was a poorly phrased question. That's all I can say about it. I don't know anything more than that.THE COURT: Well, where are you going next?MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, I'm going next with -- can I just have a moment, Your Honor? Your Honor, there's another chart in terms of -- I just need to grab it, just to answer the question more explicitly, if I can have a moment.THE COURT: How much more do you have with this guy?MR. BUTLER: Not very much at all, Your Honor.MS. CONNELLY: I think there's a bunch more documents.MR. BUTLER: Well, there's other documents we need to admit through him, yes.THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning? [Page break]MR. BUTLER: We can do that, Your Honor.THE COURT: I think I want to instruct the jury that there was no tax charge, no tax claim in this case.MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor.THE COURT: Maybe I'll even instruct them they are to disregard that last answer because it's not relevant to your case.MR. BUTLER: What I would ask is -- I'll defer to the Court on that, but I think there's no -- that the answer did not say that she has cheated on her taxes. [Even though it actually did say that, but...]MR. BURTON: I think I have to move for a mistrial because of it, because she's not charged with tax evasion.THE COURT: I know you have to file that motion, and the motion is denied. But I will give a corrective instruction right now.MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, in terms of scheduling, we do have some more civilian witnesses. He may not come back on until tomorrow afternoon, but he'll be available all day tomorrow. We just might put the other witnesses on first.THE COURT: You've made satisfactory progress today.(END BENCH CONFERENCE.) ...
I was expecting “Robertson pats AUSA” in brackets in the transcript next. ..."