Court filing
TRANSCRIPT filed as to Defendant Richard Ayvazyan, Marietta Terabelian, Artur… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 1283)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2022-02-15 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 1283 · 2022-02-15 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
Reporter's transcript of the June 14, 2021 pretrial conference in USA v. Ayvazyan et al, No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, before Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed February 15, 2022 as Doc. 1283. The court denies a motion to bar a witness from testifying about e-mails, rules that the defense may learn the full compensation of the government's retained accountant, and orders production of draft summary charts. It states that defendants need not renew objections already decided on motions in limine, and discusses a preliminary statement to the jury panel and a voir dire question on the defendants' Armenian descent. The court also sets out its rules on objections and opening statements. The 31-page transcript ends at 2:33 p.m. with the certificate of the official reporter.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON, JUDGE PRESIDING
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
AYVAZYAN, ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CR20-00579-SVW
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2021
MIRIAM V. BAIRD, CSR 11893
OFFICIAL U.S. DISTRICT COURT REPORTER
350 WEST FIRST STREET, FOURTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
MVB11893@AOL.COM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 31 Page ID
#:19848
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
A P P E A R A N C E S
IN BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
CATHERINE SUN AHN
SCOTT PAETTY
AUSA - OFFICE OF US
ATTORNEY
ORGANIZED CRIME DRUG
ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE
SECTION
312 NORTH SPRING STREET
SUITE 1400
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
CHRISTOPHER FENTON
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1400 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20530
IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS,
AYVAZYAN, ET AL.,:
FRED MINASSIAN
KAPLAN KENEGOS AND KADIN
9150 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 175
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
ASHWIN J. RAM
STEPTOE AND JOHNSON LLP
633 WEST 5TH STREET SUITE
1900
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
JOHN LEWIS LITTRELL
RYAN FRAZER
BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL
WILLIAMS LLP
903 CALLE AMANECER, SUITE
350
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673
JENNIFER J. WIRSCHING
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1935 ALPHA ROAD, SUITE 216
GLENDALE, CA 91208
THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR.
MESEREAU LAW GROUP
10100 SANTA MONICA
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 31 Page ID
#:19849
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
BOULEVARD SUITE 300
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
PETER JOHNSON
LAW OFFICE OF PETER JOHNSON
409 NORTH PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY SUITE 651
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277
ALSO APPEARING: LAURA CRAWFORD
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 3 of 31 Page ID
#:19850
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2021; 1:30 P.M.
---
THE CLERK: Calling case CR20-00579-SVW, USA vs.
Ricahrd Ayvazyan.
Counsel, please state your appearance for the
record.
MR. PAETTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Scott Paetty for the United States, joined at
counsel table with me are trial attorney Chris Fenton and the
Assistant United States Attorney Catherine Ahn and Special
Agent Jeffrey Clark from the IRS.
MR. RAHM: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Ashwin Ram on behalf of Richard Ayvazyan. I'm
joined currently not at counsel table with Michael Keogh,
Megan Newcomers, Nicholas Silverman. Would it please the
Court if at least one co-counsel could join me within one of
these three empty seats?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RAHM: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. LITTREL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
John Littrell, also Ryan Frazer is with me. I
would also ask that he be invited to join me at counsel
table. We represent Mary Terabelian. Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. WIRSCHING: Jennifer Wirsching for Artur
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 4 of 31 Page ID
#:19851
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
Ayvazyan, who is also represented by Tom Mesereau. We would
request that Mr. Mesereau be able to be seated at the table
with us.
THE COURT: Absolutely.
MR. MINASSIAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Fred Minassian on behalf of Tamara Dadyan who is
present in the court this afternoon.
MR. JOHNSON: Peter Johnson on behalf of Vahe
Dadyan who is also present.
MS. CRAWFORD: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Laura Crawford standing in for attorney Gilbert
Tahmazian on behalf of Arman Hayrapetyan who is present being
assisted by the Armenian interpreter.
THE COURT: Who is that now?
THE CLERK: That was Laura Crawford in place of
Mr. Tahmazian who is on the airplane.
THE COURT: Okay. This is the time for further
pretrial conference. The Court spent with the lawyers a
substantial part of Friday afternoon having an extensive
hearing regarding many of the matters that were raised.
There are some additional matters that are raised. One of
them relates to Massino, and his testimony. With regard to
the motion to bar him from testifying about the e-mails, that
motion is denied. He can testify regarding the e-mails. The
wording of the proposed question should be altered in the
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 5 of 31 Page ID
#:19852
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
sense that he shouldn't be asked if he is -- does he
recognize certain a name from the e-mail on another document.
The term recognize implies some mental state or some
knowledge.
I would allow that type of questioning if the
questioning is along the lines of I show you exhibit so and
so, and do you see the name of so and so on the -- on that
document. It is similar, but there is a nuance. I think
that nuance should be observed.
With regard to the Robinson, that's the accountant.
I do believe that the defendants have a right to know about
the full extent of her compensation, not just from the work
she did on this case, but what her accounting firm performed
as much -- and all of the other cases that she was retained
by government to do similar work. I don't know how many
cases there are, but it all goes to her bias and so that
should be produced to the defense.
The defense wants all correspondence of any kind
between Johnson and the government. My view is that they're
entitled to any correspondence that falls within the Jencks
Act. I don't know what the government has, but surely they
know of their responsibilities under the Jencks Act. While
the Jencks Act speaks to providing documents after testimony,
I would implore the government to provide any Jencks
materials before the witness testifies so that there's a
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 6 of 31 Page ID
#:19853
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
better opportunity to prepare cross-examination.
Regarding drafts of summary charts, the government
in its answer a few hours ago said that it would provide
that. It also noted that any differences are self --
evident. So I'll order that. The government is not required
to provide the bills and breakdown of the bills that Stout or
Johnson submitted.
With regard to the procedures at the trial, the
defendants have made many motions in limine regarding
evidentiary rulings. The Court for better or worse has ruled
on all of them. So the defense is not required to object
during the trial on those grounds to any testimony. My view
is that the record is preserved if it comes to that.
Regarding a preliminary statement to the jury prior
to jury selection, the Court has to say something to the
panel as a whole. There will be a hundred jurors reporting
tomorrow. Because if I don't say something generally about
the case, they won't know how to answer the voir dire
appropriately. So I was thinking about just saying that the
government has charged the defendants with wire fraud, a
conspiracy, bank fraud, whatever, money laundering, whatever
it is. The government's theory is that the defendants
conspired to submit false documents in order to get those
loans and then used the funds for purposes that weren't
allowed under the loan program. I guess, I can mention
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 7 of 31 Page ID
#:19854
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
generally the loan program.
Then I should say that the defendants, of course,
deny all of the charges, and the trial begins with the
presumption of innocence and the burden on the government to
prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, I'm
sort of offering this off the cuff. I'll try to refine it,
but is that something that seems reasonable or what is --
what comments are there?
MR. RAM: Yes, Your Honor. That seems reasonable.
MR. LITTRELL: Your Honor, I would ask that the
Court specify that these were COVID-19 --
THE COURT: You know something. Let me ask the
question. I hope that not in politic. Is everyone here
vaccinated? Anyone not vaccinated? Who is not vaccinated?
You know something, my close-up vision is a lot better than
my distance vision. I don't know. Tell me who you are?
DEFENDANT ARTUR AYVAZYAN: Not vaccinated.
THE INTERPRETER: I'm not having nighted.
THE COURT: All of the lawyers are vaccinated;
right?
(All attorneys concur)
MR. LITTRELL: Shall I take off my mask when I
speak with you.
THE COURT: It's very hard. You know this, is kind
of being born again. I haven't been here for 15 months. I'm
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 8 of 31 Page ID
#:19855
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
trying to get my bearings. I am having trouble hearing if
you have the mask on.
MR. LITTRELL: I'm having the same problem,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Am I being heard clearly?
MR. LITTRELL: I can hear you.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. LITTRELL: The suggestion, I'd ask that the
Court inform the jury that these were COVID relief funds.
The reason I think is they may have strong feelings about it
given where we are with the pandemic.
THE COURT: I will.
MR. LITTRELL: They are disaster relief funds
specifically targeted to small businesses for COVID.
THE COURT: Who is your client, Mr. Littrell?
MR. LITTRELL: Mary Terabelian.
MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, this is Peter Johnson on
behalf of Vahe Dadyan. We have no objection to the summary.
THE COURT: All right. I will refine it. Before I
deliver it, I'll run it by you to make sure I'm not
misstating something.
With regard to the -- and the voir dire will be
conducted by the Court. I will ask many of the questions
that were proposed. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Littrell, you
proposed some questions, correct?
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 9 of 31 Page ID
#:19856
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
MR. LITTRELL: I did, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You proposed some questions about, you
know, the defendants being of Armenian descent and whether
that would affect any juror's ability to be fair and
impartial, something along those lines?
MR. LITTRELL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think that's a fair question.
MR. LITTRELL: I may also propose a question about
whether any of the prospective jurors have -- speak Armenian
or have any understanding of the Armenian language.
THE COURT: I know what you said. I can remember
it.
MR. LITTRELL: Very well.
THE COURT: Let's see here. I don't think this
hearing will be that long. We had maybe three hours Friday.
We covered a lot of ground. I just want to make sure I tie
up all of the loose ends.
Some things that I insist upon. When you address
the Court or the jury, stand at the lectern. You don't have
to be a wooden soldier, but don't navigate too far from the
lectern. I discourage bench conferences. In this case,
it -- I mean, I can't remember a criminal case with more
motions in limine. Maybe there have been, but not in my
recent experience. So we've covered a lot of the important
matters. If there is a ruling during the trial that someone
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 10 of 31 Page ID
#:19857
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
objected to and you want to be reheard on that, and if it's
an important ruling, let's do it at a recess or the lunch
hour.
Regarding objections, when you make an objection,
stand up. Make the objection clearly on legal grounds,
whatever it is. Wait for the Court's ruling. Don't argue
the objection. Don't argue it in the form of making the
objection, or certainly after the Court rules on it. That's
standard practice.
Regarding opening statements, I did discuss the
Court's view of opening statements at the conference on
Friday. I want to make sure that everybody understands it.
It has become in legal circles to be known as opening
argument. It isn't an argument. In every trial seminar,
even back when I was trying cases, every seminar talked about
the importance of the opening statement. I'm not suggesting
that it's unimportant, but the opening statement can be
persuasive by arranging the facts but not argument. I know
that in the -- in the culture, that rule is observed and not
observed. What constitutes a legitimate opening statement in
some courts is different than what might be the case in other
courts.
I believe, as I said Friday, in the principles well
known in psychology of primacy and recency. I don't want the
jury to make up their minds before they hear any evidence.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 11 of 31 Page ID
#:19858
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
There have been studies which I don't know how reliable they
are, but studies as the term goes these days, that have shown
that jurors sometimes do make up their mind quickly.
So with regard to the government, I have noticed
over the years -- I don't know if it's part of your
mentoring, but when you make an opening statement, I often
hear the first sentence it sounds something like this, and
I'm just paraphrasing. I'm not putting words in your mouth.
The prosecutor will address the jury and say, first words out
of his or her mouth, this case is about fraud and deceit, and
it's about a gross abuse of an important government program.
I mean, that's -- that's what I hear sometimes. Don't do
that because that's argument. That is your view that it's
about fraud and deceit. It's the jury's mind to determine
that.
And the purpose of an opening statement is not to
review in detail what every witness is going to say or every
document says. It's to give the jury some perspective, and
it shouldn't be lengthy. I mean, I don't see why you
couldn't make an opening statement in this case any longer
than 45, 50 minutes or tops, an hour. I mean, the detail is
not part of the opening statement. The parties shouldn't
discuss the law in the opening statement or burdens. I will
tell the jury, as I've already indicated, what the burden is
and what the presumption is. I don't want the parties to
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 12 of 31 Page ID
#:19859
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
argue burdens.
From the defense standpoint, obviously, I can't
predict what evidence there will be. Of course, the defense
has no obligation to produce any evidence, but certainly the
defense can tell the jury generally what its theory of
defense is. It can describe, as I instructed the government,
what facts it will introduce either on cross-examination of
government witnesses or their own witnesses. Don't use the
code words, which I discussed Friday. You know, the code
words, I expect the evidence to show. And after that, is a
few pages of argument, or I'm going to make this promise to
you in the opening statement. Usually that is argument. Any
such camouflage. I mean, the opening statement to me is
important, but it is straightforward, and it may be the most
bland part of the case. It's just an opportunity to help the
jury as the evidence comes in. It's not an opportunity to
detail the evidence.
I mean, I'm making general comments. I don't know
what you have in mind, but I'm trying to do what I can to
eliminate any issues. Let's see, there was something else
here. I have a question for the government. I was reading
the trial memorandum yesterday. In the trial memorandum
there are certain references to one of the defendants or more
performing some allegedly unlawful act while on bail. What
is the legal significance, if any, about that? Can someone
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 13 of 31 Page ID
#:19860
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
provide an answer?
MR. FENTON: Yes, Your Honor. There's two sets of
counts --
THE COURT: Could you take the lectern. It's
easier for me to hear you. Tell me your name.
MR. FENTON: Christopher Fenton, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FENTON: There are two sets of Counts that were
committed, crimes that were committed while the defendants
were on pretrial release. The fact that those counts were
committed while the defendants were on pretrial release is in
violation of 18 USC 3167, which ultimately results in a
statutory enhancement at sentencing.
THE COURT: So it's a sentencing issue then?
MR. FENTON: It is.
THE COURT: But you're saying under Apprendi and
those cases, it has to be determined by the jury?
MR. FENTON: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I see. What input do the defendants
have in that regard? Anything?
MR. RAHM: Your Honor, one option.
THE COURT: You're close enough so I can hear you
you're, Mr. Rahm.
MR. RAHM: Ashwin Ram on behalf of Richard
Ayvazyan.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 14 of 31 Page ID
#:19861
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
THE COURT: Right.
MR. RAHM: One option to -- I understand the issue
the Court has referenced. One option would be for the
parties -- we can speak to the government and, perhaps,
stipulate that Mr. Ayvazyan, for example, was on release. So
that's something that doesn't need to be raised to the jury
potentially. That is not seriously in dispute. So that
could take the issue off the table.
THE COURT: Okay. If you can work that out, that
would be good.
MR. RAHM: The issue, Your Honor, would be if the
stipulation is read to the jury, it has the same effect of
testimony that he was on release from custody. So that is
ultimately the optics issue. I don't know if the government
was planning on calling -- it doesn't appear that there's a
witness on the witness list to speak to the fact of the
release, but perhaps the government -- we haven't had this
discussion.
THE COURT: I mean, I don't know whether anyone
committed any crime here, but to the extent a crime was
alleged, it would appear from a timing standpoint, it was at
least with some when they were on release; correct?
MR. LITTRELL: Correct. The time frame itself is
during the release.
THE COURT: I see. What is it -- what is the
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 15 of 31 Page ID
#:19862
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
status of that Rule 902 question?
MR. LITTRELL: The 902.11 --
THE COURT: The certification issue.
MR. LITTRELL: Yes, Your Honor. The parties
submitted motions over the weekend. The government --
actually, Mr. Silverman from our team can speak to that issue
if he can come to the lectern.
THE COURT: Now I remember seeing that. Go ahead.
Is that Mr. Fenton?
MR. FENTON: Yes, Your Honor. My understanding is
that issue has been resolved.
THE COURT: That's what I thought. Okay. I was
thinking of time limits, because I think time limits have a
good effect on keeping the trial moving. I do like to keep
things going and not to the detriment of allowing the parties
to present their case, but I don't like to waste the Court's
time or mostly the jury's time.
So with regard to a lot of the witnesses on Friday,
we went through the narrative of most of the witnesses. I
think I could tell from the narrative that vast majority of
the witnesses were relatively short. I mean, they were some
from the DMV who would say this or that or the other thing.
I think those witnesses should go very quickly. I can't
anticipate cross-examination. I'm only thinking of time
limits for the government's case in chief. I have no idea
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 16 of 31 Page ID
#:19863
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
which witnesses will be cross-examined or how extensively or
what is going to happen.
That's my initial comment. Did you have something
to say, Mr. Fenton?
MR. FENTON: Yes, Your Honor. I would agree with
the Court that the majority of the government's witnesses
will be quite short. The DMV witnesses that you posted to
and the EDD witnesses, those are good examples. The identity
theft victims would be short.
THE COURT: What are they going to say other than
did you apply for a loan? No. Did you ever give any -- tell
anyone to apply for you? Do you know these people or
whatever. I mean, you should go through it quickly.
MR. FENTON: We agree, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Don't -- you know, dress up the public
status of some of these people. I mean, sometimes when they
call an officer, they -- police officer, they take him
through all of their training and all of that stuff. I mean,
people know what a police officer does. They know what the
DMV is and so forth. So you can assume a few things.
MR. FENTON: Understood, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And just give me a minute to make sure
I did -- oh, timingwise, I don't know what the schedules are
of other courts. I begin trial at 9:00 o'clock. Take a
ten-minute recess in the morning, and I try to limit it to
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 17 of 31 Page ID
#:19864
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
ten minutes unless something unexpected happens and then one
hour for lunch. Go back at 1:00 o'clock until 5:00. I'm
going to clear my calendar Monday so we're going to have
trial all next week.
I don't know what to tell the jury in terms of the
length of the trial. It's difficult for me to assess because
all I know now is what the government proposes to do in its
case in chief. I'm going to tell the jury that my best
estimate is two weeks, maybe was a touch more or a touch
less. I don't know. I have to give them some idea.
I try to work hard along with you, so you can
depend on me to be punctual. If I'm not, it would be
extraordinary.
That's all I have. Anything else?
MR. RAHM: Couple housekeeping matters, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RAHM: Will each defendant be afforded eight
peremptory strikes?
THE COURT: Each defendant?
MR. RAHM: Approximately --
THE COURT: The rule says ten for the defense. Six
for the government. That's what I intend to do.
MR. RAHM: Is that per defendant, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Total.
MR. RAHM: Total?
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 18 of 31 Page ID
#:19865
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RAHM: There will likely be four defendants at
trial.
THE COURT: That's all right. We've done cases
with five, six defendants. That has been approved. So that
is what the rule says. That's the rule that will be
followed. We're going to have 16 -- I'm going to call four
alternates to make sure we have some backup. I'll give each
party another challenge for the alternates.
MR. LITTRELL: Your Honor, may I just speak on that
very briefly?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LITTRELL: Rule 24 gives this Court discretion
to grant more --
THE COURT: I know I have discretion.
MR. LITTRELL: I ask the Court the Court grant a
few more. There's a few reasons. I do think this will be a
trial where jurors have strong feelings about being here
generally --
THE COURT: But those will be for cause challenges.
I mean, if there is a basis for a cause challenge, I'm going
to rule on it. What I intend to do is first ask questions of
the -- this may be a little different because there will be a
large number of jurors. So generally what I do is I ask the
panel as a whole some questions. Then 12 jurors are seated.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 19 of 31 Page ID
#:19866
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
I get into more personal type questions with them. I may
have to alter that and just do everything at the -- with the
12 in the box. I think -- this is sort of an unknown. I
don't know how people are going to respond to jury duty with
the pandemic.
I mean, whether more people -- you know, jurors --
some jurors have a tendency to try to find a way not to
serve. It may be easier for them now. They have some cover,
but we'll see. I don't know. And certainly, I'm going to
probe and not just go through the paces. If you feel
necessary to follow-up on something, you can ask me to.
That's something that happens sometimes hopefully not
frequently. If there is something about a juror's answer
that you think requires a follow-up question, you can
approach and ask me to do that.
MR. LITTRELL: I think the concern is this: I
think jurors will admit to having feelings about being here
both because of the subject matter of the case and because of
the pandemic, but I think if the Court asked them if they can
be fair and set those feelings aside, many will say yes. I
think they mean for that to true. That does not change the
fact that they still have bias. So the bias that doesn't
rise to the level of warranting to a cause challenge is what
I'm worried about. I think this case presents a
particular --
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 20 of 31 Page ID
#:19867
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
21
THE COURT: I don't think I see anything, frankly,
unusual about this case. I mean, I know it's been hard
fought so far and it will continue to be, I know. You know,
it's -- these kinds of allegations are unfortunately or
fortunately commonplace. That's why we have trials. I mean,
it doesn't seem like an unusual case to me.
MR. LITTRELL: I think this will -- maybe this is
not unusual. I expect the government to show lots of images
of cash and jewels and gold and --
THE COURT: Well, let's find out.
Does the government intend to show pictures of cash
and gold and other things?
MS. AHN: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Who are you? Would you identify
yourself.
MS. AHN: Catherine Ahn on behalf of the
United States.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. AHN: There were gold coins and jewelry and
watches that were seized from defendant Richard Ayvazyan and
Marietta Terabelian's home, which is consistent with the
tracing records and is at issue both in the trial and the
criminal forfeiture, Your Honor. The government will be
showing those exhibits on the document camera, as they will
be brought in physically. As --
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 21 of 31 Page ID
#:19868
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
22
THE COURT: Well, is it -- regarding -- that is
something else I wanted to talk about. Thank you for
bringing that up. Regarding the forfeiture counts, would it
be appropriate to wait until the jury returns a verdict? If
the jury acquits these defendants, then we never reach
forfeiture. So maybe the solution is to not show all of the
pictures and wait to see what happens. Maybe you won't have
that opportunity.
MS. AHN: Well, Your Honor, you are correct.
Forfeiture is not at issue until after the jury returns its
verdict. The government is also alleging money laundering
and conspiracy counts. Some of its proof relates to the
movement of money --
THE COURT: Why the pictures? Doesn't the jury
know what a watch looks like or gold coins?
MS. AHN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why that? I don't like that approach.
You know, sometimes the government does that. You know,
there's an old expression from a Texas judge -- heaven knows
I'm not from Texas. He said, "You dance with dem that brung
ya." You dance with the evidence you have. We don't need
pictures, and this is not show-and-tell.
MS. AHN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm glad it was raised. Is there
something else here?
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 22 of 31 Page ID
#:19869
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
23
MR. LITTRELL: One more thing. The other thing I'm
concerned about is I think the government intends to call a
witness to talk about the purpose of the SBA loan program.
THE COURT: Let me -- well, I mean, generally, I
think, you know, the -- they have a right to describe the
program in the most general way, but certainly no witness
from the SBA or the -- who is the EIDL? What agency is that?
Is that SBA also?
MS. AHN: Yes, Your Honor, both --
THE COURT: SBA. The -- the witnesses should
describe the program in a neutral way. This is the program
set up during the COVID crisis to provide loans to small
business for these purposes and that's it. Not, you know --
another thing. I don't want the government saying in opening
statement anything about this case being about, you know, the
laudatory purposes of the loan program. That is something
politicians decided upon. It is the program, whether it's
good, bad, or indifferent.
Tell your witnesses not to use the opportunity to
color anything more than this is the way the program is; this
is the kind of information that is required; this is the
proper use of the funds, and the program relies on accurate
information. That's it.
MS. WIRSCHING: Your Honor, may I be briefly heard?
THE COURT: Yes. What is your name?
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 23 of 31 Page ID
#:19870
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
24
MS. WIRSCHING: Jennifer Wirsching for Artur
Ayvazyan, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. WIRSCHING: About the recent ruling about not
displaying photos of items from Ms. Terabelian and
Mr. Richard Ayvazyan's home. It's our understanding that the
government also seeks to introduce many photographs of items
found in the Weddington home, the home of my client and Ms.
Dadyan. Those are items that Your Honor ruled were able to
come in as inextricably intertwined. We would note to the --
THE COURT: Are those the identification cards?
MS. WIRSCHING: Things that are not related as
checks, documents. Things of that nature.
THE COURT: Well, I feel a little differently about
that. I think the government can show the jury pictures of
some of these things because they're not as self-evident. I
mean, people know what a watch is or a house. I remember in
one of the charts, the government actually put a picture of a
house in the chart. I ordered that removed.
I mean, to some extent, I'm going let the
government do that. If it becomes repetitive or excessive or
duplicative, I'll make the appropriate rulings.
MS. WIRSCHING: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. RAHM: Similar question, Your Honor, with
respect to opening statement. If the government will be
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 24 of 31 Page ID
#:19871
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
25
using a powerpoint. If they have any images or photos in the
powerpoint presentation?
THE COURT: That's a fair question.
MR. RAM: We've not seen that yet.
THE COURT: Does the government intend to use a
PowerPoint?
MS. AHN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm glad you're not using that. I
don't know where that came to be so popular, but lawyers
function on language. You know, PowerPoints, I think they're
kind of corporate boardroom stuff. Everybody uses them, so I
guess maybe they're good. I don't know. You're not going to
use it?
MS. AHN: No, Your Honor.
MR. RAHM: Your Honor, I can't remember if your
preference is to send the indictment back for jury
deliberations?
THE COURT: I probably will because -- well, it
depends. There's a lot of counts. It depends on whether
there's some way to prepare a verdict form which enables the
jury to identify evidence that relates to a count. We don't
have to address that right now.
MR. RAHM: Okay. If I -- if you'll entertain a
quick suggestion. We have no objection to the indictment
going to the jury in lieu of a detailed verdict form. We can
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 25 of 31 Page ID
#:19872
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
26
deal with that later.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. RAHM: I would ask that the forfeiture counts
or allegations be redacted out of the trial indictment.
THE COURT: We're not there yet.
MR. RAHM: Yeah.
THE COURT: Maybe -- okay. Go ahead. Would you
identify yourself. I'm going to wear my glasses tomorrow. I
didn't realize how long this courtroom is.
MR. JOHNSON: Peter Johnson on behalf of Vahe
Dadyan. Your Honor issued an order regarding the
inextricably intertwined evidence over the weekend. We
joined the opposition to that because Mr. Vahe Dadyan is not
related to any of that. We asked for a limiting instruction.
The Court's order did not include any limiting instruction.
THE COURT: Why don't you propose one for me, and
I'll consider it.
MS. AHN: Your Honor, this was addressed in the
government's reply to the opposition to the motion in limine.
I'm happy to provide a copy. Essentially, the government's
argument is that Mr. Dadyan was a participant in the scheme
and in the conspiracy.
THE COURT: I'm having trouble hearing you, Ms.
Ahn. Can you -- where is the microphone? Maybe the
microphone is too tall for you.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 26 of 31 Page ID
#:19873
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
27
MS. AHN: I am a petite person, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now I can hear you better.
MS. AHN: The government addressed this issue in
its reply in support of its motion in limine Number 2,
Your Honor. Essentially, the government's argument is that
the defendant was part of the scheme in the conspiracy and
knowingly participated. Therefore, evidence of the scheme
and the conspiracy can be brought in against him.
THE COURT: I understand. Okay. That's as much as
I can do. I'm sure as hard as the lawyers and the parties
and the Court has tried to anticipate, no trial ensues
without things that come up suddenly. Hopefully not too
many. We'll have to adjust as things go.
So I'm looking forward to the trial. The lawyers
have definitely shown that they know what they're doing in
the pretrial matters. I hope we have a smooth trial.
MS. AHN: Your Honor, if I may -- oh --
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FENTON: Your Honor, one more housekeeping
matter.
THE COURT: Would you take the lectern.
MR. FENTON: Sure. One more housekeeping matter,
Your Honor. There is an agreed upon motion for a 502(d)
stipulation that would allow the filter team in this case to
share the potentially privileged material that was
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 27 of 31 Page ID
#:19874
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
28
withheld --
THE COURT: That stipulation; right?
MR. FENTON: Yes.
THE COURT: I just noticed that over the lunch
hour. I'll approve it.
MR. FENTON: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. AHN: Your Honor, just one more item. In a
previous pretrial conference, Your Honor noted that the
government could read the -- a portion of the indictment
which we filed for the Court --
THE COURT: Oh, yes. Okay. Sorry. Thank you for
reminding me. I don't want you to read the entire
indictment. You can read the conspiracy count, the wire
fraud, just the part of the count that describes whatever you
think was a violation, and the money laundering conspiracy.
No -- maybe one or two overt acts. Not every count. I mean,
there are a lot of counts. So just read those counts.
MS. AHN: Yes, Your Honor. I believe Your Honor
provided a very similar instructions in the previous pretrial
conference. The government, at defendant's request, filed a
proposed reading indictment. We were just wondering when the
Court would like that to be read?
THE COURT: You know, I have to -- I don't have
that in mind. I have to go back and look at it. I will.
MS. AHN: Yes, Your Honor.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 28 of 31 Page ID
#:19875
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
29
MR. LITTRELL: Your Honor, on that topic. I
haven't seen this proposed indictment. One thing we object
to across the board is using AKAs to describe the defendants.
So in the captions the defendants are listed, for example, as
Marietta Terabelian, aka Viktoria Kauichko. So we would
object to the government ever using an aka to describe
Ms. Terabelian.
THE COURT: I think in this case that's a valid
objection. I mean, in other cases, you know, where someone
in a drug case, for example, has an aka, that is permissible,
but here one of the issues, at least as the Court has been
informed, will be whether this Kauichko or Zhadko or whoever
is really a pseudonym for one of the defendants.
So I think by using that aka, you may be arguing or
suggesting. That's impermissible.
MS. AHN: Yes, Your Honor. We're fine with that.
In our proposed verdict form, consistent with Mr. Littrell's
request, we actually removed the aka.
THE COURT: Let's wait for the verdict form.
MS. AHN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We've got a while to go.
MS. AHN: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. RAHM: Your Honor, one more issue?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RAHM: The defense would like to call two
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 29 of 31 Page ID
#:19876
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
30
witnesses in their case that are either part of a government
task force or federal agents. The first was raised at the
last hearing Justin Palmerton, the lead case agent. The
government said they'd make him available. By omission, we
failed to acknowledge to the Court. We also asked for a
second Detective Lyle Barns who was part of the search
warrants executed in this case.
THE COURT: Detective?
MR. RAHM: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. RAHM: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I see. Will he be available?
MS. AHN: Your Honor, we agreed to provide the
subpoena to LAPD. We reserve -- we don't know whether or not
LAPD has any objections to it. We agreed to provide the
subpoena to LAPD to make them aware of the defendant's
request.
THE COURT: So I mean, is that person served?
That's the important question.
MS. AHN: We have -- we will provide the subpoena
to Officer Barns.
THE COURT: That's all that is required now; right?
MR. RAHM: Yes, Your Honor. The scope of testimony
can be discussed later.
MS. AHN: We may file a 403 motion as to Detective
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 30 of 31 Page ID
#:19877
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
31
Barns, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I didn't hear what you said.
MS. AHN: We may file a 403 motion as to Detective
Barns.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RAHM: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Then I think we've done as much as we
can. Thank you for your participation.
MS. AHN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The pretrial conference is over.
(Proceedings concluded at 2:33 p.m.)
CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDED PROCEEDINGS IN
THE ABOVE MATTER.
FEES CHARGED FOR THIS TRANSCRIPT, LESS ANY CIRCUIT FEE
REDUCTION AND/OR DEPOSIT, ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
REGULATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES.
/s/ Miriam V. Baird
02/15/2022
MIRIAM V. BAIRD
DATE
OFFICIAL REPORTER
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1283 Filed 02/15/22 Page 31 of 31 Page ID
#:19878File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1283.0.pdf
- Size
- 373,527 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3f173c03fc554216751ea2811fb018c85b3433b642a99883e0115131e92a670d
- Original
- PACER (login required)