5.Defense Documentary Evidence and Pre-Closing Rulings

THE COURT: OK. That's OK. Let me just sort of tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- actually, you know what we'll do, we'll take a break. This is what we do, right, when we are within striking distance of a break and we are going to have a sidebar.

Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, of the jury that we are very close to the end of the evidentiary record. So I don't want you to talk to each other or anybody else about this case. If you use the breaks to look at any kind of news reports or anything else, make sure you do not read anything about this case. Take a break and we'll be back in a few minutes and we'll take it from there.

Thank you very much.

THE COURT: All right. Let's all be seated.

As I understand it, there are the three components that we had talked about. Were there other items which you had identified?

THE COURT: I understand.

Mr. Turner.

THE COURT: Let me just tell you what I think is within the scope of what I believe is appropriate and straddles the lines between the hearsay issues and the 403 issues, which are the three statements that we had previously talked about: That DPR learned in the spring of 2013 that law enforcement was investigating Silk Road and attempting to identify DPR.

Number two, that on Ross Ulbricht's laptop there was a multipage document entitled "LE Counterintelligence," which the parties agree means "law enforcement counterintelligence."

Three. This document contains communications to DPR about a variety of information relating to purported ongoing law enforcement efforts with respect to Silk Road and DPR.

Four -- these are new -- DPR learned that the investigation included the forum, administrators and moderators, and bitcoin exchanges.

And, five, DPR was providing payment for the information. Full stop.

THE COURT: All right. That's what I am going to allow.

All right. Do you have those down?

THE COURT: That does actually have the benefit of actually evening out the number of times you have moved for a mistrial. Between this trial and the last one we tried, the count makes it five movements, five applications denied. So that application is denied. My ruling is as it was previously and there's no basis to change it.

Here's what I'd like to ask you folks to do: We can bring the jury right out now, go through the one final thing and then take another short break before closings, or we can take our own short break right now, do the one final matter and go directly into closings.

Preferences?

THE COURT: So be it.

Do you folks want to take a break right now and come back, and then we'll go from this last piece, which I think will take a minute or two, into the closings, which I think makes more sense because the jury is already breaking right now.

Are you ready?

THE COURT: Yes. The answer is yes. Over objection, the Court grants the application to set up the equipment.

Why don't you tell the jury that we'll resume at 11:30. We'll have the remaining matters at 11:30 and then straight into closing statements. Thank you.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the evidentiary record in this matter is now closed. You have now heard all of the evidence in this matter. Let me just describe to you how we're going to proceed from here. We're now going to go directly into closing statements. I told you at the outset that there are two opportunities for the lawyers to address you directly. The first is during the opening statements when they give you an overview as to what they expect the evidence will show; and the second comes at the end of the case when they may argue to you as to what they believe the evidence that's in the record has shown. They will argue to you as to what inferences they think you should draw.

What the lawyers say is not evidence. The evidence is that which was received into evidence in this matter through the witnesses, through the documents during the trial.

During closings, as at any other point in time, what lawyers say is not evidence, with the sole exception as to when they are reciting a stipulation. But other than that, what lawyers say is not evidence. So your recollection of evidence and ultimately the inferences that you determine should be drawn from the evidence is what controls.

The closing statements will not be completed in their entirety before lunch. After all the closing statements are completed, I'll then charge you on the law and I'll be giving you a copy of the jury instructions to follow along with me and then you'll start your deliberations.

I don't know that you'll get to your deliberations today. It may be tomorrow morning. We'll have to see how things go and be a little bit fluid. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Turner.