DOJ-OGR-00011630.jpg

617 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 617 KB
Summary

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a debate between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, before the judge regarding a potential conflict of interest with a juror. The juror works at the same financial institution as a witness, and Ms. Moe proposes questioning the juror, while Ms. Sternheim argues against it as unnecessary and potentially prejudicial.

People (3)

Name Role Context
THE COURT Judge
Speaker in the transcript, presiding over the case and asking questions to the counsel.
MS. MOE Counsel
Speaker in the transcript, addressing the court as 'Your Honor' and proposing to question a juror about a potential c...
MS. STERNHEIM Counsel
Speaker in the transcript, addressing the court as 'Judge' and arguing against Ms. Moe's proposal.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. company
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
The government government agency
Mentioned by Ms. Sternheim as having the ability to 'exercise a challenge if it wishes'.
financial institution company
Mentioned multiple times as the workplace for both a juror and witnesses, creating a potential conflict of interest.

Timeline (1 events)

2022-08-10
A discussion took place regarding a potential conflict of interest involving a juror and a witness who both work at the same financial institution.
courtroom

Locations (1)

Location Context
Mentioned as the place where the juror and witness might recognize one another.

Relationships (3)

MS. MOE professional THE COURT
Ms. Moe addresses the Court as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal proposal for the Court's consideration.
MS. STERNHEIM professional THE COURT
Ms. Sternheim addresses the Court as 'Judge' and presents a counter-argument to a legal proposal.
MS. MOE professional MS. STERNHEIM
They are opposing counsel in a legal proceeding, presenting conflicting arguments to the judge on the same issue.

Key Quotes (3)

"Your Honor, I think at a minimum we propose some additional follow-up guess for the juror about her role, whether she interfaces with folks dealing with compliance, which is within the scope of what this witness does, whether there would be any issues about hearing testimony about the financial institution where she works."
Source
— MS. MOE (Proposing a line of questioning for a juror to address a potential conflict of interest.)
DOJ-OGR-00011630.jpg
Quote #1
"I think it is a little late. The publicly available information would have revealed that there are other people who are in that same institution or have been affiliated with that institution, some of which were excused, and at least one that is still here."
Source
— MS. STERNHEIM (Arguing against questioning the juror, suggesting the issue could have been addressed earlier.)
DOJ-OGR-00011630.jpg
Quote #2
"But I think it's unnecessary. And it flags something inappropriately at this stage of the game."
Source
— MS. STERNHEIM (Stating her belief that questioning the juror would be improper and unnecessary.)
DOJ-OGR-00011630.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document