George Santos is back in court

I wish he would just plead guilty.”

Jonathan Tatun, heckler

Charges against Santos

Wire Fraud - Multiple counts across both indictments for allegedly embezzling funds from donors and misusing campaign funds.

Money Laundering - Related to the movement of illegally obtained funds.

Theft of Public Funds - Santos allegedly fraudulently obtained over $24,000 in Covid-19 unemployment benefits.

Making False Statements - Allegations that he lied on financial disclosure forms submitted to the House of Representatives.

Conspiracy to Commit Offenses Against the United States - A new charge from the second indictment.

Falsifying Records - Charges related to submitting fraudulent documents to obstruct the Federal Election Commission.

Aggravated Identity Theft - New charges for allegedly using stolen identities to commit fraud.

Access Device Fraud - Related to unauthorized use of donor credit cards.

George Santos returned to the courthouse on Aug. 13 what should be his last appearance before his trial formally begins on Sept. 16. Showing none of his infamous swagger, the former congressman sat demurely before Judge Joanna Seybert as his defense team, the prosecution and the judge worked out and discussed the final steps before the trial commences.

Santos has pleaded not guilty to over 20 counts of financial crimes. The litany of allegations against him ranges from using campaign contributions for personal expenses to unlawfully collecting unemployment benefits.

One of the most important aspects concerned the selection of the jury. Seybert explained that after the jury is selected, set for Sept. 9, their identities will remain “partially anonymous,” or known only to the defense and the prosecution, per a request by Santos’ team.

Furthermore, Seybert rejected Santos’ team’s proposal that potential jurors would have to fill out a written questionnaire regarding their opinions of the former congressman, in line with the prosecutors’ assessment. Both emphasized that adding the questionnaire would only slow down the jury selection process, while questioning potential jurors in person offered the chance for more nuanced and informative insight into their capability to serve on the jury.

“I’ve used questionnaires before. They’re very inefficient,” Seybert said. “The government opposes it, and I agree.”

The former congressman’s lawyers had previously argued that the questionnaire, which addressed potential jurors’ beliefs and preconceptions about Santos, was necessary due to the wide-ranging negative media coverage he had been subject to since the allegations of his widespread deceit was first published nearly two years ago. The prosecutors maintained that the request was merely another delay.

Thus far, the court already has 332 potential jurors out of their initial outreach to 800 people. In addition to the 12 jurors, the defense and prosecution agreed to allowing six alternates, or potential replacements for the jury in case any become ill, have a personal emergency, or are otherwise disqualified or excused before deliberations begin.

While having alternates on standby is essential to any trial, it is especially relevant in Santos’ case, both due to his controversial public persona as well as the fact that the prosecutors estimated that the trial would take roughly four weeks. Seybert encouraged both defense and prosecution teams to try and “streamline” the process as much as possible.

“Make me hopeful,” she said. “Sit down and discuss what is absolutely necessary.”

Part of the reason for Seybert’s desire to streamline the process is the sheer scale of the prosecution’s evidence. Assistant United States District Attorney Ryan Harris explained that the prosecution has roughly three dozen witnesses willing to testify not to mention the tens of thousands of pages of legal and financial documents.

Of the witnesses, however, there is one who may not take the stand. Nancy Marks, Santos’ former campaign manager and a well-known financier for New York State Republican Party members for decades. While the prosecution stated that they were still unsure whether they would call Marks to testify, Joseph Murray, Santos’ lead attorney, was adamant that Marks be included, referring to her as the defense’s “key witness.”

“There’s one witness that’s essential to our case,” Murray said. “Mr. Santos’ campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks.”

Marks, who pleaded guilty in October of last year to conspiracy to defraud the government, admitted to fraudulently reporting a non-existent loan that the former congressman claimed to have made directly to his campaign. Marks, who did not directly name Santos in the court documents for her case, stated that the reason for the lie was to reach a $250,000 benchmark to get logistical and financial support through a program from the state Republican Party.
Murray emphasized that Marks’ presence in the courtroom was essential to his client’s case and said he would file a separate motion to have her called as a witness, regardless of whether the prosecution chooses to include her.

Throughout the whole ordeal, Santos was silent, speaking only once to briefly respond to Seybert. Upon leaving the courtroom, the New York Republican declined to speak with reporters, whereas during previous appearances Santos seemingly relished the attention from the press.