DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
569 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
569 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a cross-examination. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger debate with the Court about the proper handling of a witness's (Jane Cross's) lack of recollection, specifically concerning whether Epstein directed her seating. The core issue revolves around refreshing a witness's memory versus allowing the jury to consider the witness's current inability to recall as relevant evidence.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Speaking during a sidebar, raising an objection regarding witness testimony.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the proceeding, asking questions and making statements about witness testimony.
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney |
Responding to the Court, arguing about refreshing a witness's recollection and the relevance of memory.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to a witness not remembering if he directed where they sat.
|
|
| Jane Cross | Witness |
The subject of the cross-examination, referred to as 'the witness' who 'doesn't recall' and 'testified'.
|
| counsel | Attorney |
Generic reference to an attorney reading reports into the record.
|
| jury | Jury member |
Referred to in the context of their 'determination'.
|
| other witnesses | Witnesses |
Referred to as a means to put on evidence.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed as the entity responsible for reporting the transcript.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion during a court proceeding regarding a witness's inability to recall information, specifically concerning whether Epstein directed seating. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, along with the Court, debate the proper procedure for refreshing recollection and the relevance of a witness's memory to the jury's determination.
Courtroom (implied by 'sidebar')
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the discussion between the attorneys and the judge is taking place.
|
Relationships (4)
Ms. Moe addresses the Court as 'your Honor' and engages in legal arguments.
Ms. Menninger addresses the Court as 'your Honor' and engages in legal arguments.
They are both attorneys presenting arguments to the Court regarding the same witness and legal procedure, implying an adversarial or co-counsel relationship in a legal setting.
The witness (Jane Cross) is questioned about whether 'Epstein directed where they sat', indicating a past interaction or connection.
Key Quotes (6)
"Thank you, your Honor. And I apologize for asking for a sidebar, but I'm hoping this will streamline things. The issue is at a number of times the witness has testified that she doesn't recall, and instead of showing the witness the document and asking if that refreshes her recollection, which is the only thing that would be proper at that juncture, I believe counsel is now just reading reports into the record, which is not proper."Source
— MS. MOE
(Objecting to the method of handling a witness's lack of recollection.)
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
Quote #1
"Well, the question was yesterday you testified --"Source
— THE COURT
(Addressing the witness's prior testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
Quote #2
"So, yes, she said she didn't remember if Epstein directed where they sat."Source
— THE COURT
(Summarizing the witness's lack of recollection regarding Epstein.)
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
Quote #3
"Your Honor, under 613, I'm not obligated to show the witness a prior statement before I ask her about it. I have to give her an opportunity --"Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Arguing against the need to show a prior statement to refresh recollection.)
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
Quote #4
"She said she didn't remember. What's the inconsistency?"Source
— THE COURT
(Questioning the basis for an inconsistency if the witness simply doesn't remember.)
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
Quote #5
"Well, your Honor, her not remembering I don't have to refresh her recollection. Her memory is at issue in this case. If she can't remember what she said a month ago or two months ago or a year ago, that's relevant to the jury's determination. Then we can put on evidence through other witnesses that that is in fact what she said to the"Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Arguing that the witness's memory itself is relevant to the case and can be addressed through other evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,418 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 54 of 264 460
LC1Qmax2 Jane - Cross
LC1Qmax2 Jane - Cross
1 (At the sidebar)
2 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. And I apologize for
3 asking for a sidebar, but I'm hoping this will streamline
4 things. The issue is at a number of times the witness has
5 testified that she doesn't recall, and instead of showing the
6 witness the document and asking if that refreshes her
7 recollection, which is the only thing that would be proper at
8 that juncture, I believe counsel is now just reading reports
9 into the record, which is not proper.
10 THE COURT: Well, the question was yesterday you
11 testified --
12 (Pause)
13 THE COURT: So, yes, she said she didn't remember if
14 Epstein directed where they sat.
15 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, under 613, I'm not
16 obligated to show the witness a prior statement before I ask
17 her about it. I have to give her an opportunity --
18 THE COURT: She said she didn't remember. What's the
19 inconsistency?
20 MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor, her not remembering
21 I don't have to refresh her recollection. Her memory is at
22 issue in this case. If she can't remember what she said a
23 month ago or two months ago or a year ago, that's relevant to
24 the jury's determination. Then we can put on evidence through
25 other witnesses that that is in fact what she said to the
2 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. And I apologize for
3 asking for a sidebar, but I'm hoping this will streamline
4 things. The issue is at a number of times the witness has
5 testified that she doesn't recall, and instead of showing the
6 witness the document and asking if that refreshes her
7 recollection, which is the only thing that would be proper at
8 that juncture, I believe counsel is now just reading reports
9 into the record, which is not proper.
10 THE COURT: Well, the question was yesterday you
11 testified --
12 (Pause)
13 THE COURT: So, yes, she said she didn't remember if
14 Epstein directed where they sat.
15 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, under 613, I'm not
16 obligated to show the witness a prior statement before I ask
17 her about it. I have to give her an opportunity --
18 THE COURT: She said she didn't remember. What's the
19 inconsistency?
20 MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor, her not remembering
21 I don't have to refresh her recollection. Her memory is at
22 issue in this case. If she can't remember what she said a
23 month ago or two months ago or a year ago, that's relevant to
24 the jury's determination. Then we can put on evidence through
25 other witnesses that that is in fact what she said to the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017663
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017663
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document