DOJ-OGR-00016225.jpg
483 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
483 KB
Summary
This is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between counsel (Ms. Moe) and the judge. Ms. Moe successfully argues for the admission of evidence related to a person's date of birth to prove they were not underage during the 2000s, which the judge deems relevant for rebuttal. The judge then proposes a sidebar with the parties to discuss jury matters.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Counsel |
Speaking to the court, arguing for the relevance of evidence regarding a person's age and date of birth.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the proceedings, ruling on the relevance of evidence, and managing the courtroom.
|
| Ms. Williams | Court personnel |
Mentioned by the Court as the person who will check on the juror members.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion about the admissibility of evidence. Ms. Moe argues that a person's date of birth is relevant to rebut a photograph offered by the defense, showing the person could not have been an underage personal assistant in the 2000s. The Court agrees and allows the evidence.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a question regarding 'presence in the U.S.'.
|
Relationships (2)
Ms. Moe, as counsel, presents an argument to the Court, addressing the judge as 'your Honor', and the Court rules on her argument.
The Court gives a directive to Ms. Williams to 'check on the juror members', indicating a working relationship within the court system.
Key Quotes (2)
"The testimony with that person was a person -- so her date of birth makes clear that she couldn't have been a personal assistant as an underage girl given her date of birth and given the timing. This would have been in the 2000s."Source
— MS. MOE
(Arguing for the relevance of evidence to counter the defense's portrayal of an individual.)
DOJ-OGR-00016225.jpg
Quote #1
"Rebuttal relevance, I think, is apparent. So I will allow it and we can do it now."Source
— THE COURT
(Ruling in favor of Ms. Moe's argument to admit the evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00016225.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document