DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
628 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
628 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, before a judge. The discussion centers on the extent to which the defense can question the thoroughness of the government's investigation and comment on the absence of evidence. The judge clarifies that while direct testimony about why certain investigative steps were or were not taken is restricted, the defense is permitted to make arguments to the jury based on the absence of evidence.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
Speaker in the court transcript, arguing a point about evidence.
|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Attorney |
Speaker in the court transcript, responding to Mr. Everdell and referencing the Court's prior rulings.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the court transcript, clarifying a ruling on testimony and cross-examination.
|
| special agent | government's case agent |
Mentioned as a potential witness from whom testimony cannot be elicited about certain investigative steps.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting service.
|
| government | government agency |
Referred to throughout as a party in the legal case, responsible for the investigation.
|
| defense | legal team |
Referred to as the opposing party to the government, seeking to question the investigation.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach before the Court regarding the scope of testimony and closing arguments concerning the government's investigation.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
They are opposing attorneys in a court case, arguing different interpretations of the court's rulings.
Mr. Everdell addresses the Court as 'Your Honor' and presents his legal arguments for a ruling.
Mr. Rohrbach addresses the Court as 'your Honor' and references the Court's prior rulings to support his position.
Key Quotes (3)
"One is that the defense can't elicit direct testimony about investigative steps that the government did or did not take. And the other is defense can't elicit direct testimony about the thoroughness of the government's investigation."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Summarizing the Court's prior rulings on the subject of testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, I believe I am allowed to comment on the absence of evidence. I'm allowed to put that in through a witness if I choose and this is the witness to do it."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Arguing for his right to question a witness about the lack of certain evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
Quote #2
"The absence of evidence is arguments that you can make comments on, of course, and seek the jury to conclude from it what it likes in the course of its"Source
— THE COURT
(Clarifying that while direct testimony on investigative choices may be limited, arguing the absence of evidence to the jury is permissible.)
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document