UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CR-20340-WILLIAMS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

MASPHAL KRY,

 Defendant.

 /

STATEMENT OF MASPHAL KRY REGARDING THE 

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND NON-PROTECTION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

Masphal Kry, a citizen and official of the Royal Government of Cambodia, by and through 

undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Statement regarding the apparent post-trial dispute 

between Intervenors and the lawyers for the government concerning the exhibits admitted into 

evidence and published to the jury during the trial of his case.

On March 22, 2024, following a two-week public trial, the jury returned a verdict of not 

guilty of all remaining counts in the Indictment. Prior to the return of the jury’s verdict, all other 

counts in the Indictment had already been dismissed by order of the Court or on motion of the 

government. During the trial, numerous exhibits were offered by the parties and admitted into 

evidence by the Court (the “Trial Exhibits”). Once the Trial Exhibits were admitted into evidence, 

they became part of the public record. See Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Covering 

Criminal Trials: A Journalist’s Guide; https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/coveringcriminal-trials-journalists-guide#.

That is the law that applies to Mr. Kry’s trial and every federal criminal trial. Mr. Kry was 

acquitted due to the testimony and documents admitted into evidence, notably including the Trial 

Exhibits. This Court should not entertain the efforts, of either the government or non-party 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2024 Page 1 of 7
Intervenors, to hide that evidence from the eyes of anyone who might want to examine and 

understand the trial of this case. 

In its Motion, the government avers that the pre-discovery protective order in this case, 

entered by the Court on February 25, 2023 (the “Protective Order”), somehow modifies this

universally accepted rule of public trials. Specifically, the government claims in its Motion that, 

“Read broadly, it is the United States’ position that the Protective Order could prevent the release 

to third parties of all documents, which would include trial exhibits.” See ECF No. 350. The 

government’s contention is not true. The Protective Order says nothing of the kind. Consistent 

with the most longstanding doctrine of public trials, testimony and exhibits that were admitted into 

evidence are matters of public record and readily available to all who may wish to examine them. 

Now, the government and the Intervenors in this case contrive to persuade the Court to 

tinker with this most fundamental rule of public trials and permit them to jointly select and conceal

portions of the admitted exhibits from the public record. Mr. Kry would respectfully urge the 

Court to deny the Motion and simply recognize (a) that the Protective Order, by its own terms, 

places no post-facto restriction on the status of the admitted Trial Exhibits in this case, and (b) the 

universal legal standard that the Trial Exhibits, which have been admitted into evidence by the 

Court in the course of a jury trial, remain matters of public record. 

A. Public Access to Trial Exhibits is an Axiom of Common Law and Universally 

Recognized by Applicable Case Law 

There is a presumptive common law right of access to judicial records, including trial 

exhibits. Nixon v. Warner Commun., Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (“There is a right of access to these 

courtroom exhibits derived not from the Constitution: a common law right of access “that predates 

the Constitution itself.”) (emphasis added); see also id. at n.1 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting) 

(emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 386 F. Supp. 639, 641 (D.D.C. 1975)) 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2024 Page 2 of 7
(“This privilege of the public to inspect and obtain copies of all court records, including exhibits 

while in the custody of the Clerk, is of long standing in this jurisdiction and reaches far back into 

our common law and traditions.”). This right of access to judicial records “applies in both criminal 

and civil proceedings.” Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013).

Trial exhibits introduced in court during a criminal trial are presumptively public. See 

Kleiman v. Wright, No. 18-CV-80176, 2022 WL 59676, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2022) (“Public or 

judicial records are presumptively public, while documents which are not considered public or 

judicial records, such as discovery documents, are not.”); see also Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 

374 (1947) (“What transpires in the courtroom is public property...”). This right of access to trial 

exhibits promotes the integrity of our judicial system. See Chicago Trib. Co. v. 

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Richmond 

Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 564-74 (1980)) (“[T]he common-law right of access to 

judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing 

the integrity of the process” and “includes the right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents.”). 

Trial exhibits introduced in open court during a publicized trial lack justification to be filed 

under seal. See Kleiman, 2022 WL 59676, at *2 (“Importantly, given that the trial exhibits were 

either discussed at length or introduced in open court during the widely publicized trial in this 

matter, the Court sees no justification for them to be filed under seal.”), Brogdon v. Ford Motor 

Co., No. 4:23-CV-88 (CDL), 2024 WL 84192, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 8, 2024) (denying motion to 

preserve the confidential designations of trial exhibits noting that trial exhibits were “at least 

partially disclosed in open court.”), Hepp v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., No. 8:13-cv-2836-T17TBM, 2015 WL 4072101, at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2015) (finding no good cause to seal exhibits 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2024 Page 3 of 7
that had been introduced in open court where exhibits had been “disseminated to lawyers and 

litigants across the country” and post-trial request to seal the exhibits remained pending), Gubarev 

v. Buzzfeed, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1257 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (“[I]f information is or already has 

been out in the public domain, sealing is unwarranted.”); see also United States v. Posner, 594 F. 

Supp. 930, 935 n.3 (S.D. Fla. 1984) (explaining that tax returns admitted during trial were subject 

to public access because “any entitlement of privacy [defendant] may have had was relinquished 

when the returns were actually placed in evidence”). 

If no effort is made to prevent dissemination of confidential information at trial, the right to 

claim that trial materials containing that information should be sealed is waived. See Benedict v. 

Hankook Tire Co. Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 3d 747, 760–61 (E.D. Va. 2018).

B. The Pre-Trial Protective Order Imposes No Restriction on the Trial Exhibits as 

Matters of Public Record

Mr. Kry respectfully urges the Court to maintain the public’s right of access to the Trial 

Exhibits in this case. The Trial Exhibits were offered and formally introduced as evidence during 

Mr. Kry’s trial proceedings. They were presented and extensively addressed in witness testimony 

and arguments of counsel at trial, became part of the official trial record, and were subjected to 

scrutiny by the Court, witnesses, the jury, and opposing counsel. The fact that they were admitted 

underscores their integral role in the judicial process of this case. 

Further, the Protective Order, entered on February 25, 2023, see ECF No. 66, and the 

Supplemental Protective Order, entered on July 20, 2023, see ECF No. 155, say nothing that can 

reasonably be interpreted as restricting public access to the Trial Exhibits. Rather, the Protective 

Order identifies categories of materials intended to be protected from public disclosure, classified

as “Disclosure Material.” Disclosure Material includes “[b]usiness records, including financial 

records, contracts, and other materials related to the operation and activities of third parties”

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2024 Page 4 of 7
disclosed by the government to the defense pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and 

18 U.S.C. § 3500. See ECF No. 66 at 1.

But the Protective Order explicitly excludes from its scope exhibits that are introduced and 

admitted into evidence at trial. Paragraph 6 of the Protective Order states that it “does not prevent 

the disclosure of any Disclosure Material in any hearing or trial held in this action.” Id. at 3. 

Further, Paragraph 7 of the order exempts “Disclosure Material that has been made part of the 

record of this case” from the requirement to “destroy or delete materials” following the case’s 

conclusion. Id. Once the Trial Exhibits were admitted into evidence by the Court without 

objection – or over the objection of either the government or Mr. Kry – they became part of the 

public judicial record for this case and are outside the scope of the Protective Order.

Mr. Kry was acquitted due to the testimony and documents admitted into evidence, notably 

including the Trial Exhibits. This Court should not entertain the post-trial efforts, of either the 

government or non-party Intervenors, to hide that exculpatory evidence from the eyes of anyone 

who might want to examine and understand the trial of this case. Accordingly, Mr. Kry

respectfully asks the Court to deny the government’s Motion and acknowledge (a) that the 

Protective Order, by its own terms, places no post-facto restriction on the status of the Trial 

Exhibits, and (b) the universal legal standard that exhibits admitted into evidence by the Court in at 

the trial of Mr. Kry’s case are matters of public record. 

Dated: September 6, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

By: Stacey H. Mitchell

Stacey H. Mitchell (Pro Hac Vice)

Allison T. Coffin (Pro Hac Vice)

Dakota L. Kann (Pro Hac Vice)

Jane M. Mahan (Pro Hac Vice)

Nicole L. Franklin (Pro Hac Vice)

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2024 Page 5 of 7
Counsel for Masphal Kry

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

2001 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 887-4000

Fax: (202) 887-4288

E-mail: shmitchell@akingump.com

 acoffin@akingump.com

 dkann@akingump.com

 jmahan@akingump.com

Mark J. MacDougall

Mark J. MacDougall (Pro Hac Vice)

Paola Pinto (Fla. Bar No. 1013933)

Counsel for Masphal Kry

Schertler Onorato Mead & Sears

555 13th Street, N.W., Suite 500 West

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 628-4199

E-mail: mmacdougall@schertlerlaw.com

 ppinto@schertlerlaw.com

John R. Byrne

John R. Byrne (Fla. Bar No. 0126294)

Counsel for Masphal Kry

Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 520-5690

E-mail: john@maderalbyrne.com

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2024 Page 6 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email on 

September 6, 2024 upon AUSA Thomas Watts-FitzGerald, thomas-watts-fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, 

AUSA Emily Stone, emily.stone@doj.gov, Guy A. Lewis, glewis@lewistein.com, Jeffrey M. 

Forman, jforman@lewistein.com, and Paul E. Pelletier, pepelletier3@gmail.com.

Dated: September 6, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

John R. Byrne

John R. Byrne (Fla. Bar No. 0126294)

Counsel for Masphal Kry

Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 520-5690

E-mail: john@maderalbyrne.com

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 358 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2024 Page 7 of 7