"No one told you to lie, correct?"
"You ignored our attempts to contact you, isn't that true, sir?"
"You believed you were bound to the terms of the co-op agreement, right?"
F. stutters and stumbles a bit, but doesn't get defensive; he remains polite and tries to answer. Apfel was just nasty. The whole thing was embarrassing to watch, even for me, and I'm clearly biased.
In addition to the four jury members who averted their eyes, three alternates glare, literally glare, at Apfel. Out of the entire jury, only four seem sincerely open-minded and focused, genuinely interested in discovering the truth; numbers 1, 3, 4, and 9.
The judge is just as put-off as the rest of us. After repeatedly—I mean, five or six times in one hour—ordering Apfel to move on, she finally barks, "I think if you ask less powerful, loaded, and direct questions, you might get better answers." I.e., stop attacking the kid.
Apfel tries to establish two things: 1) Faneuil lies so frequently about so many things, to Merrill Lynch officers and the SEC about drugs and conversations, that we shouldn't listen to him now, and 2) F. was attempting to curry favor with the government by testifying according to their plan, that he "rehearsed" his statements. Apfel goes so far as to ask, "Did you also take acting lessons to prepare for your testimony?" Cheap shot, Apfel. Some jury members look confused, others smirk.
Seymour's objections are often sustained; occasionally she makes cute little jokes that make juror # 4turn bright red and laugh. ONLY He smiles at her. I think he has a crush.
Ugh.
Apfel continues to badger F. about all the occasions, all the SEC meetings, he promised to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," and failed to do so, even after they reached a plea bargain. "Why today do you recollect that Bacanovic told you he couldn't speak to Martha on Dec 27 for reasons that 'had something to do with a boat' when you've never mentioned that before? In the meeting with the SEC, why didn't you tell them Bac had told you he'd be unavailable to do a trade with Martha that day?" He's basically asking whether F. was lying then or now. Faneuil says he only recollected the boat bit recently. A few of the jurors finally look curious and pondering, if not altogether skeptical, namely #1, 7, and 9.
Defense's last push of the day was to barrage F. with questions about the plea bargain, about the leverage it provides him, about the favors it offers him, about what punishment he could avoid if he plays his cards right. Essentially saying it makes sense that F. would lie to avoid jail, to protect his liberty. "So we should believe that Bac intimidated you more than the idea of going to jail? That's why it took you so long to come forward?"
"Yeah, actually." And I believe that.
"This is getting repetitive, Mr. Apfel. Let's move on," Cedarbaum said, for the eleventh time that day.
The jury seems spit between those who are now considering Apfel's argument and those who STILL refuse to look at him (except for the occasional eye roll or raised eyebrow). Faneuil handed himself well: He admitted to lying, but refused to concede that he felt "protected" from being punished for crimes (like drug use) that had nothing to do with the case. "My hope is that they don't charge me for something I did in the past."
"Just like they didn't charge you with lies you told in the past..."
"Yes, but only so long as I don't tell any more lies." He likes using 20-cent words, literary and academic words, like "conflated" and "ubiquity." But his pretensions don't seem to bother the jury nearly as much as Apfel's tactics.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.