DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
649 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document (court transcript)
File Size:
649 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between legal counsel and the judge over the jury's deliberation schedule. Ms. Menninger objects to extending the jury's hours, suggesting it could be perceived as pressure to rush, while Ms. Moe argues it is merely procedural scheduling. The judge resolves the issue by deciding to instruct the jury to be available to deliberate until 6 p.m. daily, starting the next day, if they have not yet reached a verdict.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MENNINGER | Speaker (likely legal counsel) |
Speaking to the judge ('Your Honor'), arguing against urging the jury to stay later for deliberations.
|
| MS. MOE | Speaker (likely legal counsel) |
Speaking to the judge ('Your Honor'), arguing in favor of extending the jury's deliberation schedule.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the proceeding, addressed as 'Your Honor', and making the final decision on the jury's schedule.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case and making decisions on procedure.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between legal counsel and the judge regarding the schedule for ongoing jury deliberations.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (3)
Ms. Menninger addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal argument for the judge's consideration.
Ms. Moe addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and presents a counter-argument to Ms. Menninger's position.
They represent opposing viewpoints on the issue of the jury's schedule, presenting conflicting arguments to the court.
Key Quotes (3)
"we believe that any suggestion that they should stay later is beginning to sound like urging them to hurry up..."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Arguing against instructing the jury to deliberate for longer hours.)
DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
Quote #1
"We don't believe that sends any kind of signal, other than that the Court is setting a schedule."Source
— MS. MOE
(Countering Ms. Menninger's argument and supporting the extension of deliberation hours.)
DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
Quote #2
"I'll tell them that if deliberations are not complete starting tomorrow, I would like you to make yourselves available to deliberate until at least 6 p.m. each day."Source
— THE COURT
(Stating the final decision and instruction that will be given to the jury regarding their schedule.)
DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document