DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
541 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
541 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the trial, discussing Rule 16/608 and witness privacy.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Defense Counsel |
Addressed by the court regarding the Rule 16 issue.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Counsel |
Identified by Ms. Menninger as the attorney handling the Rule 16 piece.
|
| Ms. Comey | Prosecutor |
Addressed by the court regarding who is handling the argument.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Prosecutor |
Responds to the court that he is taking the argument instead of Ms. Comey.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Trial resumption without jury present to discuss procedural matters regarding Rule 16/608 and witness pseudonyms.
Courtroom (Southern District of New York)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by 'Southern District Reporters' and case number format.
|
Relationships (2)
Menninger defers the argument to Everdell.
Court asks Comey if she is taking the argument; Rohrbach responds he is taking it.
Key Quotes (3)
"personal identifying information of witnesses who I've given permission to testify under pseudonyms to protect their privacy."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
Quote #1
"if we are talking by impeachment by contradiction... it's not required to be disclosed as case-in-chief material under Rule 16"Source
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
Quote #2
"So the question is whether it's impeachment or not."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document