Pretrial Evidence, Witness Immunity, and Juror Inquiry
58 linesSAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 17, 2021 P R O C E E D I N G S
(COURT CONVENED AT 8:31 A.M.)
(JURY OUT AT 8:31 A.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: LET'S GO ON THE RECORD IN UNITED STATES V. HOLMES. LET'S CAPTURE THE APPEARANCES, PLEASE, FOR THE RECORD.
MR. LEACH: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ROBERT LEACH, JOHN BOSTIC, AND JEFF SCHENK ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
MR. WADE: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. LANCE WADE ON BEHALF OF MS. HOLMES. WITH ME TODAY ARE MR. DOWNEY, MR. LEMENS, MS. TREFZ, AND MR. CLINE, AND MS. HOLMES IS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM THIS MORNING.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. WE'RE OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, AND I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD MEET WITH YOU TO TALK ABOUT SOME THINGS. I RECEIVED YESTERDAY DOCUMENT 1025 WHICH WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S -- EXCUSE ME. THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO A MOTION FILED BY MS. HOLMES'S TEAM, WHICH WAS DOCUMENT 1023. THIS WAS MS. HOLMES'S NOTICE REGARDING TESTIMONY OF MS. GANGAKHEDKAR, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THAT. I THOUGHT WE WOULD TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THOSE THINGS THIS MORNING. BUT I WANTED TO GO BACK TO OUR DISCUSSION YESTERDAY REGARDING, AND DAYS BEFORE REGARDING 803.6 AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTIONS FOR THESE EMAILS. WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT, AND I KNOW THE PARTIES HAVE -- THE DEFENSE HAS MADE SOME OBJECTIONS, THE COURT HAS MADE SOME RULINGS. I WAS LOOKING AT REVIEWING MY NOTES, AND THE THOUGHT OCCURRED TO ME THAT I THINK MR. BOSTIC LAID FOUNDATIONS UNDER 803.6, BUT WHAT I WOULD INVITE YOU TO DO, IF YOU WISH TO, MR. BOSTIC, IS TO SECURE MORE INFORMATION, IF POSSIBLE, FROM THE WITNESS, MS. CHEUNG, REGARDING ANY OBLIGATIONS, DUTIES TO MAINTAIN RECORDS. I UNDERSTAND FROM LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION WE HAVE SO FAR THAT THE WITNESS INDICATED IT WAS USED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. I'M JUST GOING THROUGH THE FACTORS FOR 803.6. AND I BELIEVE SHE INDICATED THAT IT WAS -- EMAILS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LABORATORY REPORTING WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REGULARLY USED IN THERANOS AT THAT TIME. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO INQUIRE AS TO IF THERE WAS DUTY, OBLIGATION, TO MAINTAIN AND USE THOSE RECORDS FOR THAT PURPOSE. I THINK SHE SPOKE ABOUT THAT, BUT IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO ENHANCE THE RECORD ON THAT.
MR. BOSTIC: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S COMMENTS. MS. CHEUNG TESTIFIED THAT THOSE EMAILS COULD BE RESERVED SO THEY CAN BE REFERENCED LATER, BUT I THINK WE CAN DEVELOP THE RECORD FURTHER IF THE COURT THINKS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS TO THE DUTY TO PRESERVE THOSE EMAILS. I'LL BE HAPPY TO HANDLE THAT ON REDIRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. SO I DID -- LET'S GO BACK THEN TO YOUR PLEADINGS THAT WERE FILED, MR. WADE. I NOTED THEM AND THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE. I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION YOUR OBJECTIONS ANTECEDENT OF THE JURY COMING OUT HERE, BUT SOME OF THESE NEED TO BE DEVELOPED, I THINK, SOME OF YOUR OBJECTIONS WOULD NEED TO BE DEVELOPED ON THE RECORD I THINK.
MR. WADE: WE WILL DEFER TO THE COURT'S PREFERENCE ON THAT. WE'RE HOPEFUL TO GET THE TEMPERATURE ON THE PORRIDGE ON THESE ISSUES JUST RIGHT ONE OF THESE TIMES AND SATISFY EVERYONE. IT'S OBVIOUSLY OUR GOAL TO GIVE AS MUCH NOTICE, AND WE DID SEND MANY OF THESE ISSUES TO THE GOVERNMENT ON SATURDAY. WE SENT A NOTICE WITH RESPECT DO OUR INTENT TO OBJECT. JUST GIVEN A COUPLE OF THESE MAY REQUIRE A NEED TO APPROACH, WE THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST RAISE THEM AND DEFER TO THE COURT'S PREFERENCE. I DO NOTE, SINCE THE COURT BROUGHT UP BUSINESS RECORDS AND WE'RE LEARNING SORT OF THE CONTOURS OF THE APPLICATION OF THAT IN THIS CASE, I WILL JUST NOTE THAT I THINK EXHIBITS 10 AND 11 TO OUR PLEADING, WHICH ARE EXHIBITS 1065 AND EXHIBIT 3961 RESPECTIVELY, ARE JUST THE KINDS OF CASUAL CONVERSATIONS THE COURT WAS REFERRING TO.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE.
MR. WADE: PART IT WAS JUST AN EXERCISE IN GIVING THE PARTIES SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHERE WE ARE GOING FORWARD HERE.
JUDGE DAVILA: NO. I APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT I'VE NOTICED IS THAT AS YOU SAY TAKING THE TEMPERATURE OF THINGS HERE, WHAT I'VE NOTICED IS THAT THE PLEADINGS, FOR SOME REASON, THE PAGE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED A LITTLE BIT. SO MAYBE THAT'S A FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL PROCESS AS WELL AND GETTING FAMILIARITY WITH HOW WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS TO THOSE TWO, AND I LOOKED AT THOSE AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THERE'S AN EMAIL CHAIN -- AND I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK IN FRONT OF THE WITNESS OR IN FRONT OF WHAT THAT TESTIMONY WOULD BE. IT COULD BE THAT I LOOKED AT THAT AND THAT THAT WAS A RESPONSE TO -- AN INTERCOMPANY RESPONSE AND REACTION TO -- THIS WAS, I THINK, THERE WAS SOME SOFTWARE ENGINEERS WHO WERE UP UNTIL 3:00 A.M. AND RESPONSES, COLLOQUY ABOUT WHY THAT HAPPENED, WHAT HAPPENED, AND THEM WHAT WE SHOULD DO IN REMEDIAL ACTION. SO I LOOKED AT THAT, AND IT MIGHT BE A CONTINUATION OF THAT CONVERSATION. BUT, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE ANYTHING. IT MIGHT NOT BE ASKED.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT.
MR. WADE: I WOULD JUST SUGGEST IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IF THAT CONVERSATION, IF WE COULD JUST IMAGINE IT TO BE HAPPENING FACE TO FACE, THAT WOULD BE A HEARSAY COMMENT EVEN IF IT'S A RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT. BUT WE'LL DEFER TO THE COURT. WE'RE HAPPY TO DO IT. YOU DO NOTE HOW HARD SOME OF THESE FOLKS ARE WORKING, AND I NOTE THAT MANY IN THE COURT ARE WORKING ON THIS, AND SO WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO STREAMLINE THESE ISSUES AND MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS THE MATERIAL IN FRONT OF THEM AND WE'RE HAPPY TO WAIT FOR THE COURT AND WAIT FOR THE WITNESS ON IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. THAT'S WHY RESERVE BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9:00 O'CLOCK, OR IF YOU EVER NEED TIME TO COME IN AT 7:00 A.M., I'M SURE YOU'LL LET ME KNOW THAT AS WELL. MR. BOSTIC, ANYTHING ELSE FROM YOUR TABLE? MR. LEACH?
MR. LEACH: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. JUST BRIEFLY ON 1065 AND 3961. I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF POSSIBLE HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS IN PLAY HERE, NOT JUST THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE STATEMENTS BY MS. GANGAKHEDKAR, THEY'RE STATEMENTS OF AN AGENT, SHE REPORTS DIRECTLY TO MS. HOLMES, SHE IS ON SOME LEVEL FEEDING DIRECTIONS FROM MS. HOLMES TO HER TEAM, AND SO I THINK THIS IS QUITE CLEARLY STATEMENTS OF AN EMPLOYEE OR AN AGENT IN THE COURSE OF HER DUTIES. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE STATEMENTS BY THAT WITNESS, I THINK THERE'S MULTIPLE EXCEPTIONS THAT COULD POSSIBLY APPLY. AND IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS RAISED IN THE PLEADING, WE'RE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM NOW. I DIDN'T VIEW ANY OF THESE EXHIBITS AS THE TYPE THAT IF I ASKED FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS, THAT THAT WOULD SOMEHOW BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE JURY. WE APPRECIATE THE NOTICE FROM THE DEFENSE, BUT I DIDN'T VIEW ANY OF THESE AS THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE RAISED OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE. I THINK THE OBJECTIONS CAN BE MADE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE POSSIBLE HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS FOR A NUMBER OF THESE.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU'RE SUGGESTING 801(D)(2)(D) AS TO THAT STATEMENT SPECIFICALLY?
MR. LEACH: YES. YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. ONE THING THAT WAS COVERED, I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE PASSING OF AN EMPLOYEE. AS I UNDERSTAND FROM THE PLEADINGS, THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T INTEND TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
MR. LEACH: I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR THE COURT.
JUDGE DAVILA: IAN. IAN.
MR. LEACH: OH, THAT'S CORRECT. IN PRIOR INTERVIEWS WE'VE TALKED TO MS. GANGAKHEDKAR ABOUT THE PASSING OF IAN GIBBONS IN MAY OF 2013. WE DON'T INTEND TO INTRODUCE THAT EXHIBIT OR DWELL ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS PASSING, SO WE DON'T INTEND TO GO THERE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WILL YOU BE ASKING ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, DO YOU KNOW? OR CAN YOU TELL US NOW? YOU DON'T HAVE TO, OF COURSE.
MR. LEACH: I DON'T THINK THERE'S CONTROVERSY OVER THE FACT THAT HE PASSED AWAY. I THINK THERE'S CONTROVERSY OVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE CONTEXT. I DON'T PLAN TO GET INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR THE CONTEXT. IT'S POSSIBLE THE FACT THAT HE PASSED AWAY COULD COME OUT, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASK WHY OR HOW PEOPLE FELT OR --
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT.
MR. LEACH: -- WAS THERE SPECULATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. SO THIS WITNESS HAD BEEN RECRUITED BY DR. GIBBONS AND HAD SOME FAMILIARITY WITH HIM, SO THE FACT OF HIS PASSING COULD COME OUT. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ASK WHY AND IF THERE'S ANY SPECULATION. AND IF I UNDERSTAND THE DEFENSE'S CONCERNS, THAT'S REALLY THE RUB IN THE MATTER.
MR. WADE: THAT'S COMFORTING. IT SOUNDS LIKE MR. LEACH IS DRAWING WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE APPROPRIATE BOUNDARIES THERE. THE OTHER ISSUE I MIGHT ADDRESS, JUST BRIEFLY, THAT MAYBE IS AN APPROPRIATE PRELIMINARY ISSUE AND NOT A MOMENT, NOT A TRIAL OBJECTION, IS THE IMMUNITY ORDER. OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS MEANT TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT AS WELL AS THE ACCUSED, AND WHETHER ALL OF THE JURORS KNOW THAT OR NOT IS, YOU KNOW, IS ANOTHER QUESTION, AND THEY COULD INFER THINGS FROM OFFERING THAT. WE DON'T INTEND TO GO -- WE'VE ADVISED THE GOVERNMENT WE DON'T INTEND TO, TO ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS, YOU KNOW, ON THIS BASIS, AND UNDER 403, WE DON'T SEE ANY NEED FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO FRONT THE IMMUNITY ORDER, TALK ABOUT THE IMMUNITY ORDER. I DON'T SEE IT AS RELEVANT AND I CERTAINLY SEE IT AS PREJUDICIAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, THIS BRINGS UP THE ISSUE WHETHER 7.4 WOULD BE GIVEN, MODEL INSTRUCTION 7.4 WOULD BE GIVEN AT THE CONCLUSION AND IF -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. LEACH'S POSITION IS ON THIS -- BUT IF THE JURY IS INFORMED THAT IMMUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THIS WITNESS, IT SEEMS LIKE IF A PARTY REQUESTED 7.4, I THINK THE COURT IS INCLINED TO GIVE IT. BUT STEPPING BACKWARDS, I THINK THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE CONCERNED IN THE MOTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SEEK TO SUPPORT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS BASED ON THE IMMUNITY GRANT, AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT THEN FROM ADVANCING THAT ISSUE. AND, ALTHOUGH, MR. LEACH, MAYBE YOU CAN TELL US WHAT YOUR INTENT IS.
MR. LEACH: MY INTENTION WAS TO BRING OUT THE FACT THAT SHE HAS BEEN IMMUNIZED, SHE'S RECEIVED A BENEFIT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THERE MAY BE JURORS WHO ARE WONDERING WHY OTHERS WERE NOT PROSECUTED. I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON AND PERMISSIBLE FOR EITHER PARTY TO ELICIT THE FACT THAT SHE'S RECEIVED SOME FORM OF BENEFIT. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S INTENTION TO ADMIT THE IMMUNITY ORDER OR TO REFER TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMMUNITY ORDER THAT -- EXCEPT THE IMMUNITY FOR FALSE DECLARATION, WHICH UNDER THE WALLACE CASE AND OTHER NINTH CIRCUIT CASES CAN BE VIEWED AS BOLSTERING THE WITNESSES. IT'S NOT OUR INTENTION TO DO THAT ON OUR DIRECT EXAMINATION. IF THE DEFENSE DOES GO THERE, LIKE WITH A PLEA AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER INSTANCE WHERE SOMEBODY HAS BEEN GIVEN A BENEFIT, WE WILL SEE IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BRING OUT THAT FACT. BUT I DON'T INTEND TO DWELL ON THE PROVISION OF THE IMMUNITY ORDER THAT TALKS ABOUT THERE BEING AN EXCEPTION FOR PERJURY, FALSE DECLARATION, OR SOMETHING ELSE TO SUGGEST THAT SHE'S UNDER SOME SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY HERE. BUT SHE'S BEEN GIVEN A BENEFIT. I EXPECT THAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO SEEK THE INSTRUCTION THAT YOUR HONOR IS REFERRING TO, AND IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR EITHER SIDE TO BRING OUT THE DIFFERENT MOTIVATIONS OF A PARTICULAR WITNESS.
MR. WADE: YOUR HONOR, THE COMMENT ABOUT THE JURY WONDERING IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND, BY IMPLICATION, THERE WAS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THE WITNESS I THINK IS KIND OF THE PROBLEM UNDER 4.3. THE COMMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS SORT OF TELLING THEM IN THAT REGARD, I DON'T THINK THAT IS A PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE HERE AND CERTAINLY IT SHOULD BE INADMISSIBLE UNDER 403. THE INFERENCE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DRAW FROM THAT, WHICH IS TO SUGGEST OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, IS WHAT CONCERNS THE DEFENSE, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, AND THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO I TAKE IT, MR. LEACH, TO TRY TO CREATE AN INFERENCE THAT THERE WERE OTHERS WHO POSSIBLY FACED CRIMINAL LIABILITY, BUT THEY'RE NOT BEFORE THE COURT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MR. LEACH: THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION, YOUR HONOR. MY QUESTIONS WILL BE, HAVE YOU BEEN SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE COURT HAS ENTERED AN ORDER THAT YOUR TESTIMONY MAY NOT BE USED AGAINST YOU? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE -- THAT THE COURT HAS ISSUED AN ORDER THAT YOUR TESTIMONY -- NOTHING CAN BE DERIVED FROM YOUR TESTIMONY? NOTHING GREATER THAN THAT. IT'S THE BENEFIT THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED. PEOPLE MIGHT BE WONDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHY SHE'S TESTIFYING, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON TO CONCEAL THAT FROM THE JURY.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. LET ME JUST STATE THAT WITNESSES ARE -- THIS HAPPENS WITH WITNESSES IN TRIAL FREQUENTLY. AND THERE IS NOTHING FOR THE FACT THAT THE WITNESS HAS BEEN GRANTED IMMUNITY TO COME OUT BEFORE THE JURY. AS I SAID, IN FINAL INSTRUCTIONS, THAT'S WHAT 7.4 IS FOR. WHAT I THINK THE PLEADINGS -- WHAT YOUR PLEADINGS FILED YESTERDAY SPEAK TO IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT CAN BE USED AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE GOVERNMENT TO VOUCH FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS, AND I THINK MR. LEACH KNOWS THE GROUNDWORK ON THAT. THAT CAN'T HAPPEN UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DOOR HAS BEEN OPENED IN SOME MANNER. AND I THINK YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, MR. WADE, BETWEEN TURNING THE KNOB AND OPENING THE DOOR.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FURTHER THIS MORNING? OH, LET ME TELL YOU, WHAT TIME -- DO THE PARTIES HAVE AN IDEA OF WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE OUR MORNING BREAK?
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE.
(DISCUSSION AMONGST DEFENSE COUNSEL OFF THE RECORD.)
MR. LEACH: THAT'S FINE WITH THE GOVERNMENT, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU IN A MINUTE.
COURT CLERK: COURT IS IN RECESS.
(RECESS FROM 8:47 A.M. UNTIL 9:01 A.M.)
(JURY IN AT 9:01 A.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL PARTIES PREVIOUSLY PRESENT ARE PRESENT ONCE AGAIN. OUR JURY IS PRESENT AND OUR ALTERNATES ARE PRESENT. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT I TOLD YOU AND I WILL BE ASKING YOU AT THE START OF EACH DAY. I HAVE TOLD YOU HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR YOU TO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT IS RECEIVED IN THIS COURTROOM, AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME AND THE PARTIES TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE HAS RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM, THAT IS, BY ANY NEWS STORY, RADIO, TELEVISION, INTERNET, SOCIAL MEDIA, OR ANYONE SPEAKING TO YOU ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. LET ME JUST ASK FOR A SHOW OF HANDS IF ANYONE HAS HAD THAT EXPERIENCE WHERE THEY HAVE HAD EXPOSURE TO ANY OUTSIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CASE. AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK PRIVATELY, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. LET ME ASK FOR A SHOW OF HANDS FROM OUR JURY AND ALTERNATES IF ANYONE HAS HAD THAT EXPERIENCE. I SEE NO HANDS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. I BELIEVE MS. CHEUNG WAS ON THE STAND. DID YOU HAVE ANY CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION?
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COULD WE CALL THE WITNESS IN, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, MS. CHEUNG. I'LL INVITE YOU TO TAKE A SEAT AGAIN IN THE WITNESS STAND. AGAIN, MAKE YOURSELF COMFORTABLE. I'LL ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. WHEN YOU ARE COMFORTABLE, WOULD YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE.
ERIKA CHEUNG: MY NAME IS ERIKA CHEUNG.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. AND I'LL REMIND YOU YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH.
ERIKA CHEUNG: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU CAN REMOVE YOUR MASK IF YOU WISH.
ERIKA CHEUNG: OKAY.