The federal trial of OneTaste founder Nicole Daedone and former sales director Rachel Cherwitz entered a pivotal stage Friday, as the jury began deliberations in the high-profile forced labor conspiracy case. But it was a fierce dispute between defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean and U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati—one of the most heated courtroom exchanges of the weeks-long trial—that defined the day’s proceedings.
As the jury sent a series of notes requesting exhibits and testimony readbacks, a fight erupted over one particular document: A text conversation containing statements from OneTaste trainer Ken Blackman. The Government argued the exhibit showed Daedone’s knowledge of certain company practices. Bonjean countered that it was riddled with hearsay and should not be used to prove the truth of the statements contained.
The clash came to a head when the jury specifically requested to review these messages. Bonjean insisted that if the exhibit was going to the jury room, it needed to be accompanied by a limiting instruction, clarifying that Blackman’s statements could not be considered for their truth—only to show notice to Daedone.
Judge Gujarati initially expressed frustration that no limiting instruction had been requested earlier when the exhibit was admitted, and suggested it might now be improper to single out one document for such treatment. But Bonjean pushed back forcefully, arguing that she had objected to the exhibit as hearsay from the start, and that it was unfair for the Court to suggest it was now her fault the jury might misuse it.
“It is not appropriate to shift the blame to the defense when we made the — we did what we could do, which is object on hearsay grounds, and the Court overruled that,” Bonjean stated. When the judge warned her to lower her voice, Bonjean replied, “I know. I am very upset, obviously. And I think the Court is being dishonest.”
Judge Gujarati responded, “Passionate and zealous is appropriate. Screaming at the Court is not appropriate.” The tense exchange continued, with the judge emphasizing that “the rules apply to everyone in this courtroom, including you, Ms. Bonjean.”
“It doesn’t seem that way,” Bonjean replied. The argument highlighted a recurring defense complaint throughout the trial—that the Court had favored government evidentiary arguments over those of the defense, particularly regarding hearsay and scope of evidence.
Ultimately, Judge Gujarati ruled in Bonjean’s favor on this point, announcing that a limiting instruction would accompany the evidence when provided to the jury. The Court crafted an instruction reminding jurors that Blackman’s statements were not admitted for their truth, but solely to provide context regarding notice to Daedone. The exchange left an indelible mark on the day’s proceedings. Bonjean, clearly determined to preserve the issue for appeal, told the Court, “There will be a very excellent record of prejudice should it come to that.”
The jury began deliberations shortly before noon and sent several notes requesting exhibits and readbacks of testimony. Proceedings concluded around 5:15 PM, with jurors set to resume deliberations on Monday.
As the OneTaste trial nears its conclusion, Friday’s heated argument underscored the stakes not only for the defendants but also for how the conduct of the trial itself may shape the appellate record.
