Judge Nicholas Garaufis

Judge Denies Motion for Mistrial – Case Will Continue

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis has denied the defense’s motion for a mistrial in the case of the U.S. v. Raniere. As a result, the trial will resume today.

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis

The mistrial motion was based on the fact that certain witnesses in the trial – those who are deemed to be Keith Raniere’s victims – will only be addressed in the courtroom by their first names.

Other witnesses, however, will be addressed by their full names.

Marc Agnifilo, Raniere’s lead attorney, argued that the bifurcated system makes it appear that Raniere is guilty because it makes a distinction between alleged “victims” and other witnesses.

Marc Agnifilo

Agnifilo also said that the ruling will force him to adapt the way he will present the defense’s case. “It is repugnant to my theory of the case”, he said.

About the author


News and art, national and local. Began as alternative weekly in 1990 in Buffalo, NY. Publishing content online since 1996.


Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Some of the charges against Raniere involve immigration fraud.
    Encouraging or harboring illegal aliens.

    Here is the Irony.

    This trial is being held in New York City which is officially a Sanctuary City.

    Jurisdiction: New York City, New York
    Date Enacted: March 2013
    Policy: A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to persons not to be detained by the police department
    Criteria For Honoring Detainer: Will not honor ICE detainer.
    Source: ICE Document, Declined Detainers List

    All over America States, Counties and Cities openly defy US Government Immigration law and refuse to cooperate with ICE.
    When will the US government crack down on rebellious local officials who are hindering the enforcement of America’s immigration laws?

    There are an estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in America.
    New York City alone is thought to have over 500,000 illegal immigrants.
    There are thought to be over half a million undocumented immigrants in New York City.

    In such an environment is anyone going to get worked up by the paltry number of illegal immigrants Raniere might be responsible for?

  • DENIED beeotch. Now let’s get on with the blood bath…no not the kind at 8 Hale Drive. The kind that will send scumbag Keith to prison forever.

  • You are assuming that there is an unlimited supply of money.

    I don’t see it. Didn’t someone report that Ms. Bronfman told the court she would not be topping up the trust with any further funds?

  • If he loses, Raniere will appeal based on “ineffective counsel”. This case will be appealed for years to come.

    • Let’s hope not. Better yet, let him appeal as long as he’s behind bars the whole time. Give him a false sense of hope, and let him rot in prison forever.

  • Krclaviger,

    I am a big fan of yours.

    My only true negative critique of you truly, excluding the time I pulled your chain, is the title of your previous article…..

    …….”Mistrial Hearing at 9:00 AM Tomorrow – Future of Trial in Doubt”‘

    I almost ralphed when I read the title and article.

    It was like a CNN headline or FOX news Breaking News caption bullet or Enquirer cover page….. somewhat of an exaggeration….

    Thank you again for all the good reporting with the one exception.

    • A hearing on a mistrial motion is, by definition, a serious challenge to the continuation of a trial. Defense attorneys don’t make that type of motion lightly because doing so is a serious challenge to something the prosecution did and/or something the judge missed.

      I understand that many readers think the issue that was the basis for the mistrial motion was not that important. But the “first names only” rule for just certain witnesses does, in fact, create two types of witnesses: i.e., those who are victims – and those who are not victims. Will the jury assume that victims are more credible than non-victims or vice versa? How is someone like Sarah Edmondson going to be classified? How about Lauren Salzman?

      I wish that Judge Garaufis had decided to treat all the witnesses in the same way” i.e., first names only – or full names. By creating two types of witnesses, I think he’s given the defense a very appealable issue.

      • How does hiding a name (due to public embarrassment) affect the credibility of a witness in any manner whatsoever? That doesn’t follow. Also, how does hiding a name affect the ability of jurors to judge such credibility? That also doesn’t follow.

        The jury can simply be instructed to consider only the real reasoning for withholding a name and nothing more, just like anything else.

        I think it’s a piss poor attempt by Agnifilo that has no sincerity despite his bluster, and was only done for the possibility of future appeal.

        • It creates an assumption that the “first name only” witnesses are so credible that they must be protected. I think it was a mistake, as anyone who wants to find out who the individual can do a simple search on this website.

          • No it doesn’t. The credibility of a person’s testimony is not in any way negatively or positively impacted due to one of their names being hidden.

        • I suppose jurers might think poor little helpless vulnerable Mary – a first name person only, sweet and innocent v. Mrs Mary Smith – big responsible surname bearing different person.

          May be the judge could just make them all use initials or pseudonyms instead to ensure parity between the two kinds of witnesses.

      • Thanks for hammering that out so finely, Claviger. You’re a wordsmith and a gentleman, even if you are a lawyer. JK. …Lucky us, really!

        I’d agree the Court’s gotta assume Clare and/or some high roller with high stakes in this might well finance a helluv an appeal and, as we’ve observed and learned in this case, there IS a bang to be bought in the US DOJ for one’s $6M (plus gazillions in attorney fees) bucks.

        ….Assuming that final figure DOES preclude the NDNY and State from bringing separate charges as you seem to trust they might — which would make Clare’s “paydown” more of a good start than a sell-out. But, we’ll see.

        [I’m with Frank in his apparent stance that the fix is in on that where the Bronfman’s and, IMO, Mexican Espians are concerned. IDK if KAR is under the same fix warranty so to speak. I suspect it’s as Jeff Peterson says to a degree — KAR’s the cheese.

        Nor ought Nancy Salzman — anyone who’s benefitted and participated much as I know she and Lauren have in formulating and advancing these crimes — shouldn’t be let off so easy either IMO — to go on perpetrating as I believe they all, especially Clare, damn well plan to if too-lightly punished.]

      • Krclaviger,

        Thank you for taking the time to explain everything.

        I greatly appreciate it and I am sure most Frankreport guests do as well.

        I never considered how a jury would view or evaluate witness testimony based on witnesses using a full name or only a first name sudo alias.

        “Two types of witnesses” is an interesting twist for grounds for an appeal.

    • Raniere will appeal no matter what. He tried to appeal a motion decision in the Ross case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

      Appellate courts will look at all factors in the case. Raniere will not get another trial in an appeal, his ass will be in prison.

      This Judge is smart. If he thought a verdict would be overturned due to Marc Agnifilo tantrum, he would of ruled a mistrial.

      • I didn’t say the appeal would win, just that it is fuel for an appeal. The more of these blunders there are, the more likely Raniere will get a new trial.

%d bloggers like this: