Special Agent Erika Jensen: Watch the Summary Witness’ Blind Spots

The only witness who testified at yesterday’s opening day of the Hunter Biden trial yesterday was a 20-year FBI Special Agent named Erika Jensen. As Derek Hines had her introduce herself, she’s just a summary witness, and as presented so far, almost exclusively with regards to, “addiction and illegal controlled substances.” She’ll probably be on the stand for at least an hour today.

Q. Can you describe the types of crimes you have investigated during the course of your career?

A. I am primarily a criminal agent, so I have worked matters such as drugs, gangs, firearm offenses. I have done white collar, which is bank related crime, corruption, and other criminal matters.

Q. Were you assigned to a criminal investigation of the defendant, Robert Hunter Biden?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately when were you assigned?

A. In the fall of 2023.

Q. Are you testifying today to summarize certain evidence collected during the investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. What kind of evidence are you summarizing today?

A. It’s going to be evidence of addiction and the use of illegal controlled substances. [emphasis]

Now, it is normal for prosecutors to rely on summary witnesses to admit a bunch of evidence. They used Jensen to admit all the parts of Hunter’s book that made his addiction look really bad, a bunch of communications, and select financial records. It is very common for the summary witnesses to be deliberately compartmented from anything prosecutors want to hide from the defense or jury or public.

In this case, the entire prosecution team (with the very notable exception of David Weiss, who has sat in two courtrooms watching Leo Wise make claims that are not true) is effectively a clean team, made up of people who were not part of a lot of sordid things that happened years ago, sordid things that are likely a big part of the reason David Weiss was originally willing to end this investigation with misdemeanors and a diversion agreement. So after Weiss reneged on that plan, using the disgruntled IRS Agents’ complaints as an excuse, everyone got replaced. Poof! Sordid past becomes plausibly denied.

Jensen adds a layer of compartmentation on top of that. Because she only joined the team in the fall, for example, she is likely entirely compartmented from the way Leo Wise chased Alexander Smirnov’s fabrications about Joe Biden. She didn’t do any of the exploitation of the digital evidence. She’s likely not the person who told Derek Hines that sawdust is cocaine, though whoever did was likely playing the role she’s now playing. She’s not the person who made a show of reviewing the digital data after prosecutors finally got a warrant to search for gun crimes in December 2023; a Special Agent named Boyd Pritchard did that (indeed, her summary claims to be relying on the 2019 and 2020 warrants to access the data, something that may come up in cross today).

Again, all of this is common, if not expected. If trials provided opportunity to learn what really went on in criminal investigations, there’d be fewer guilty verdicts.

There are, however, some embarrassing things that Jensen does or likely knows. For example, it appears that, after prosecutors frothed up the entire dick pic sniffing brigade by claiming the pouch in which the gun was found had cocaine residue, they discovered Hallie Biden put the gun there, as Hines made clear in his opening argument.

Hallie found the gun, as well as his drug paraphernalia, drug remnants scattered in the truck. Concerned about the gun, she decided to get rid of it. She panicked, she put the gun in the defendants leather pouch, which was also in his truck, a leather pouch which he used to store his crack cocaine, an accessory, she put the gun, pouch, speed loader and ammunition in a gift bag.

Additionally, Jensen interviewed Gordon Cleveland — alone, a no-no in FBI procedure — about why the gun shop doctored the gun purchase form. That means she’s the only witness to Cleveland’s observation that he doesn’t much care about the documentation. But since that’s not yet in evidence, it’s not clear Lowell will be able to cross-examine her on it (which may have contributed to prosecutors’ decision to start by proving that Hunter was an addict — to protect both Jensen and Cleveland’s credibility after they both did something stupid, though they could bring Jensen back to summarize everything else).

Prosecutors use summary witnesses to protect weaknesses in their case.

But because they do, you can sometimes learn something about a case from the negative space outlined by the testimony of a summary witness. It points to areas where prosecutors wanted their summary witness to remain intentionally dumb.

A glaring example evident already from Jensen’s testimony is Keith Ablow. Derek Hines had Jensen introduce the invoices from a rehab center Hunter attended in August 2018, which will admittedly be an absolutely critical issue of contention going forward (because prosecutors only have testimonial evidence that Hunter used drugs between then and when he bought a gun).

Q. What does the top show, page 1?

A. So the top shows where the e-mail was received from at The View, and it’s sent to [email protected], and the date of 8/22/2018, the time and the attachment of invoice.

Q. What is The View?

A. The View is a detox center, rehab center.

Q. Where is it located?

But he didn’t have her pull invoices relating to the Keith Ablow Ketamine treatment. And when Abbe Lowell asked her about it on cross, she said she was not going to pull any of that evidence, and so could only offer a vague date about when it was.

Q. That’s when he left Delaware to go to Massachusetts for another form of rehab. Isn’t that what happened in the chapter? Isn’t that the date? After —

A. I have a date when he went to Massachusetts, that I saw — I’m not going to pull that from the excerpts though, I don’t know that we have that, but it was November, mid November is what I believe.

Q. So after the October incidents, he goes to Massachusetts and there he is entering another form of rehabilitation, is that your understanding of the timeline?

A. Yes. Yes.

So it was left to Lowell to point out that a great deal of the texts on which she relied came from after that treatment, well after Hunter ever owned a gun.

Q. And then the texts that I started with when I was asking you questions start in the end of 2018 after November, to 2019, we established that timeline; right? I’m sorry, we established that timeline — sorry, we established that timeline, that the —

A. Yeah. Yes, we went over messages from February of 2019.

Q. Following his going to Massachusetts which you and I just established was in November of 2018?

A. Correct.

Q. And that was after the October purchase of the gun?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was after the gun was no longer in his possession?

A. Yes.

Remember: Hines has always very deliberately buried this passage from Hunter’s book.

The therapy’s results were disastrous. I was in no way ready to process the feelings it unloosed or prompted by reliving past physical and emotional traumas. So I backslid.

Unless I’m misunderstanding the excerpts that did come in (which were wildly skewed to years long before he owned a gun), it’s not in evidence. So when Hines relied heavily on some 2019 communications to try to suggest a continuity to Hunter’s addiction yesterday, he didn’t tell the jury that, at least according to Hunter’s own reconstruction, what Hines is relying on is actually worse than his state in 2018, when he bought a gun.

Hines has always been relying on Hunter’s state after Keith Ablow got to him, but yesterday he tried to entirely obscure that fact.

No doubt because he’s relying on massive bank withdrawals as a proxy for spending on drugs the consumption of which he has no direct proof, Hines similarly did not have Jensen tally out what Hunter was spending money on in fall 2018 (and there has been no mention of sex worker payments, which both the prosecution and defense know, but will not explain, made up a big part of those expenses).

Q. And can you go to the next page. It says August 21st. Can you go to the next page? With the amount 5,000. Can you go to the next page, please? And then the next page. And you see the dates, August 23rd of ’18, do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. The next page, please? And there is another amount. And then the next page. And it says stabilization, there is another amount. Do you know who paid those invoices?

A. I think I know who paid part of them

Q. Go ahead.

A. But I don’t — I’m trying to think of my source of information, I think it was partially paid, I seen a record in Mr. Biden’s bank account for at least a payment, yes, and I think there were family assisting.

Q. When you were pointing out, for example, the issues of his bank account and the $5,000 that you then talked with Mr. Hines and the other amounts of a few thousand dollars, did you match up those withdrawals to these invoices?

A. No.

Prosecutors use summary witnesses to introduce a lot of evidence, but also to protect weak parts of their case. So it’s worth tracking the negative spaces of where they don’t ask summary witnesses to look.

That may become interesting this morning, as Lowell continues cross-examination.

Jensen’s introduction of the digital evidence was very cursory. Thus far, for example, Jensen’s description of how investigators validated the laptop is laughable.

Q. Ultimately in examining that laptop, were investigators able to confirm that it was Hunter Biden’s laptop?

A. Yes.

Q. How?

A. Among other things, there was a serial number that’s on the back of this laptop that matches the Apple subpoena records that they obtained in 2019, so it matches the registration of this particular device to the iCloud account at a particular date.

Q. And is that serial number FVFXC2MMHB29?

A. Yes.

Q. And that’s also in the Apple records, you said?

A. Yes.


Q. Now, you mentioned being able to corroborate that that was in fact the defendant’s laptop. Did you also see information on the laptop when it was examined that showed that he had dropped it off at the MAC shop?

A. So, there was an e-mail that was obtained from the iCloud warrant returned, that showed an invoice from the MAC Shop to Mr. Biden with the — yes.

Q. I’m showing you Exhibit 40. Is that the e-mail you just referenced?

A. One second. Yes.

All she has done, so far, is show that the laptop was at one point registered to Hunter’s account and that John Paul Mac Isaac sent Hunter’s publicly identified email account an invoice. That’s not remotely adequate validation (and note, Hines uses the word “corroborate,” not “validate”). Notably, Hines didn’t ask her about several other things we know Lesley Wolf originally relied on to claim validation, most importantly, calls to and from a phone number belonging to Hunter, as well as a cigar bar purchase. Hines also asked her whether the was Hunter’s, not whether it had a clean chain of custody.

So this, too, may become an interesting negative space as cross-examination resumes.

Keep an eye on the summary witness’ deliberate blind spots and negative space: because that’s precisely what prosecutors are trying to hide.

Update: I’m reading today’s transcripts and several intentional blind spots are clear.

First, she knows almost nothing about finance. She knows less about Hunter’s corporate person, Owasco PC, than about 50 Congressional interns. She didn’t track money flow. She doesn’t know how Hunter paid for rent or where he lived.

And she looked at almost no emails. Which is especially nutty, because she used an email to validate the laptop.

28 replies
  1. originalK says:

    The prosecution appears to have introduced her initially as an investigator. Can defense ask her about how she typically investigates, the roles she performs and whether she does them herself, first of all (like with respect to preparing the audio and digital evidence – I believe one of your xeets had covered phone extractions) and second whether she typically interviews witnesses SOLO or as part of a team? I think it would really inform the jury, rather than just assuming they understand the scope of her contributions.

    • emptywheel says:

      They will focus on the fact that she has investigated for nine months but found no hard proof (besides the Hallie texts) Hunter was using in the period he owned a gun.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        From your summary of this “20-year old FBI Special Agent,” that would seem to be the entirety of her post-Quantico career, which would suggest she’s not much of an expert on anything. Given her junior status, one might have reason to question her basic competence.

        • harpie says:

          Earl, it’s 20-year old FBI Special Agent named Erika Jensen.”

          Also, Marcy, there’s a small date TYPO: “gun crimes in December 2024

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I’m confused. Are you repeating my excerpt, but adding her name, or are you saying Jensen has twenty years’ experience as an FBI agent, which wasn’t what Marcy wrote? Enquiring minds and all that.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Freudian slip, perhaps. I see that Marcy has corrected the sentence to delete “old,” meaning Jensen has twenty years’ experience.

        • earlofhuntingon says:

          You didn’t see the original then, PensionDan, which inserted “old,” to suggest the special agent was twenty, rather than had twenty years’ experience.

        • EatenByGrues says:

          FWIW, to become an FBI special agent, you must:
          * Be at least 23 years old
          * Have a four-year college degree and two years of professional work experience (not necessarily in law enforcement, but in a relevant field) OR a postgraduate degree and one year’s of work experience.

          So the number of 20-year-old FBI agents is almost certainly zero.

  2. Upisdown says:

    The investigator listened to Hunter’s audiobook? Wow. All investigations should be as easy.

    I also think that, since Hunter Biden’s sources of income were very limited at the time he wrote the book because of conservative smears, he might have spiced the contents up in order to sell more copies. “I occasionally smoked some crack” is too boring to make any best seller list.

    • John Paul Jones says:

      Impossible to say unless Hunter testifies. The danger there is that the prosecution, even if it can’t shake him (he did pretty well with the Congressional committee) will characterize it as self-serving.

      • EatenByGrues says:

        “Only Democrats will testify in their own defense! True innocent patriots like Donald Trump are muzzled from testifying by a gag orderrefuse to take the stand!"

    • zscoreUSA says:

      Kind of like solving the murder of Darnell Simmons, but that suspect ended up going free

  3. Alexei Schacht says:

    HB could very possibly be acquitted as the timeline plus the actual question on the form are in his favor. Unlike almost every other question on the form the drug use/addiction question is in the present tense and can be read to mean did you take drugs that day or maybe very recently. It does not say “anytime in your life” unlike the other questions. If HB was in rehab that week and he can say he felt that he was not an addict nor using at that moment that may be reasonable doubt.

  4. zscoreUSA says:

    That’s a really good point about the level of addiction after Ablow’s and how the prosecution is using the 2019 time frame to represent 2018 addiction.

  5. Tech Support says:

    If Lowell is going to attack chain of custody of the laptop, is the cross of Agent Jensen the first place we might expect to see it?

    Would that start with asking Agent Jensen to explain the concept to the jury or is that just a television thing?

  6. Brad Cole says:

    Crack is supposed to be cheap, I’m not sure why you’d need “massive amounts” of cash to pay for it. Hookers and bar bills, on the other hand, can be costly.

  7. theartistvvv says:

    “And she looked at almost no emails. Which is especially nutty, because she used an email to validate the laptop.” Should that be, “corroborate”? ;-D

  8. Freda_CHANGE-REQD says:

    Has this witness demonstrated expertise, special education related to addiction? All seems poorly prepared. I would expect an expert to have developed a timeline ofHB addiction, treatment etc.
    of course, the poorer the case presented, the easier it will be for common sense jurors to toss the case.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. “Freda” is your second user name; you commented previously as “Freda Seddon” which meets the site’s 8-letter minimum standard for usernames. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  9. Desidero says:

    Q: Do you know who paid those invoices?
    A. I think I know who paid part of them…
    A. But I don’t — I’m trying to think of my source of information, I think it…

    Quite the reassuring expert witness testimony to put someone away for years.

  10. Jamus_06JUN2024_1052h says:

    Love your work it’s amazing.
    Do you have a link to the transcripts please?
    Was trying to find where Jensen said she couldn’t verify that the laptop hadn’t been tampered with.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

Comments are closed.