DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
506 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
506 KB
Summary
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a cross-examination. Ms. Pomerantz argues for the relevance of a witness's experiments on memory, distinguishing them from other evidence related to Dr. Rocchio, while Mr. Pagliuca briefly interjects. The Court ultimately rules 'Overruled' on an unspecified objection or motion.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Pomerantz | Attorney |
Speaking during a legal proceeding, arguing about the relevance of evidence related to a witness's experiments.
|
| The Judge | Judge |
Addressed as 'Your Honor' by Ms. Pomerantz and makes a ruling as 'THE COURT'.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Attorney |
Speaking during a legal proceeding, interjecting during Ms. Pomerantz's statement.
|
| Dr. Rocchio | Doctor/Expert |
Mentioned by Ms. Pomerantz as someone who was not testifying and whose work is distinct from the current witness.
|
| Witness |
Referred to by Ms. Pomerantz as having testified about extensive findings on memory and conducted experiments.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | company |
Court reporting service responsible for transcribing the legal proceeding.
|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, to whom evidence is presented and who makes rulings.
|
| defense | legal entity |
Mentioned by Ms. Pomerantz as trying to introduce something for cross-examination.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A cross-examination during which Ms. Pomerantz argues for the relevance of a witness's experiments on memory, distinguishing them from other evidence, and the Court issues an 'Overruled' ruling.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Part of the name of the court reporting service, implying the geographical jurisdiction of the court.
|
Relationships (4)
Ms. Pomerantz addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and makes arguments, and the judge makes a ruling.
They are both speaking during the same legal proceeding, with Mr. Pagliuca interjecting during Ms. Pomerantz's statement.
Ms. Pomerantz refers to 'this witness' who has testified and whose experiments are being discussed in the context of cross-examination.
Ms. Pomerantz distinguishes the current witness's work from Dr. Rocchio's, noting Dr. Rocchio was not testifying, implying they are both experts in a related field.
Key Quotes (4)
"Your Honor, this witness has testified about her extensive findings on memory that are based on multiple experiments. This is one of the experiments, so they asked her about certain experiments on direct examination. This is one of the studies that she herself conducted, and so I don't see how this is a parallel question. It's presented for the Court. This is part of the experiments that she used and that she conducted that forms the basis of her opinions."Source
— Ms. Pomerantz
(Arguing for the relevance of a witness's experiments during cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
Quote #1
"I think part of the analysis -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, if you were finished."Source
— Mr. Pagliuca
(Interjecting during Ms. Pomerantz's argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
Quote #2
"It's quite distinct from Dr. Rocchio, who wasn't testifying. That was something, as your Honor pointed out, that the defense is trying to introduce for cross-examination, and it wasn't an article that she had written. It's quite distinct."Source
— Ms. Pomerantz
(Further arguing the distinction of the current evidence from other evidence related to Dr. Rocchio.)
DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
Quote #3
"Overruled."Source
— The Court
(A ruling made by the judge in response to an objection or argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,175 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 176 of 246 2471
LCGVMAX5
1 of doing it. And I think this is analogous to that, if not
2 exactly the same.
3 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this witness has testified
4 about her extensive findings on memory that are based on
5 multiple experiments. This is one of the experiments, so they
6 asked her about certain experiments on direct examination.
7 This is one of the studies that she herself conducted, and so I
8 don't see how this is a parallel question. It's presented for
9 the Court. This is part of the experiments that she used and
10 that she conducted that forms the basis of her opinions.
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think part of the analysis -- I'm
12 sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, if you were finished.
13 MS. POMERANTZ: It's quite distinct from Dr. Rocchio,
14 who wasn't testifying. That was something, as your Honor
15 pointed out, that the defense is trying to introduce for
16 cross-examination, and it wasn't an article that she had
17 written. It's quite distinct.
18 THE COURT: Overruled.
19 (Continued on next page)
20
21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016659
LCGVMAX5
1 of doing it. And I think this is analogous to that, if not
2 exactly the same.
3 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this witness has testified
4 about her extensive findings on memory that are based on
5 multiple experiments. This is one of the experiments, so they
6 asked her about certain experiments on direct examination.
7 This is one of the studies that she herself conducted, and so I
8 don't see how this is a parallel question. It's presented for
9 the Court. This is part of the experiments that she used and
10 that she conducted that forms the basis of her opinions.
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think part of the analysis -- I'm
12 sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, if you were finished.
13 MS. POMERANTZ: It's quite distinct from Dr. Rocchio,
14 who wasn't testifying. That was something, as your Honor
15 pointed out, that the defense is trying to introduce for
16 cross-examination, and it wasn't an article that she had
17 written. It's quite distinct.
18 THE COURT: Overruled.
19 (Continued on next page)
20
21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016659
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document