DOJ-OGR-00017692.jpg
621 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
621 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the admissibility of evidence for impeaching a witness named Jane, debating whether the issue falls under Rule 408, and emphasizing the necessity of the witness's personal knowledge. The judge also elaborates on the binding nature of Second Circuit precedent on district courts unless overturned by a higher authority.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a cross-examination ("Jane - cross").
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, making rulings and discussing legal precedent with counsel.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, responding to the court's questions.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney |
Mentioned by the court as having made an argument in the civil litigation context.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Referenced as a U.S. Court of Appeals whose decisions and precedent are binding on district courts.
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as a body whose decisions can reject Second Circuit precedent.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Relationships (2)
The document is a transcript of a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE) during a legal proceeding.
The court references an argument made by Ms. Menninger, suggesting she is likely opposing counsel to Ms. Moe in the litigation.
Key Quotes (3)
"I agree there are personal knowledge questions in issue."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge acknowledging the core issue regarding the witness's testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00017692.jpg
Quote #1
"district courts are required to follow Second Circuit precedent even if its intention was subsequent changes in the law, unless and until the case is reconsidered by the Second Circuit sitting en banc or its equivalent or is rejected by a later Supreme Court decision."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge explaining the legal principle of stare decisis and the hierarchy of court decisions.)
DOJ-OGR-00017692.jpg
Quote #2
"It's not a 408 issue, it's a foundation question, personal knowledge question."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge clarifying the legal objection or issue at hand, shifting from Rule 408 to the foundational requirement of a witness's personal knowledge.)
DOJ-OGR-00017692.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,584 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 83 of 264 489
LC1VMAX3
Jane - cross
LC1VMAX3
Jane - cross
1 we're talking about is impeachment. And so a statement or an
2 issue of bias that's being offered for impeachment, whether
3 we're talking about a Rule 408 issue or otherwise, is only
4 relevant and permissible if this witness knows about it.
5 THE COURT: I agree there are personal knowledge
6 questions in issue. I did ask you specifically if it was a 408
7 issue, and you said yes. You're on your feet, of course, now,
8 and have to respond to me quoting a Second Circuit decision at
9 you. And, of course, district courts are required to follow
10 Second Circuit precedent even if its intention was subsequent
11 changes in the law, unless and until the case is reconsidered
12 by the Second Circuit sitting en banc or its equivalent or is
13 rejected by a later Supreme Court decision.
14 So I do think there may be a question of the change in
15 the rule and what the scope of that was and whether it
16 overturns the Second Circuit decision such that I'm not bound
17 by it. I doubt it. Separate and apart from that is the
18 question of whether she has personal knowledge of what her
19 attorneys did, right.
20 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: It's not a 408 issue, it's a foundation
22 question, personal knowledge question.
23 Ms. Menninger made an argument that in the civil
24 litigation context, she could be assumed to have adopted the
25 position of her attorneys. I think we do get to that bridge,
2 issue of bias that's being offered for impeachment, whether
3 we're talking about a Rule 408 issue or otherwise, is only
4 relevant and permissible if this witness knows about it.
5 THE COURT: I agree there are personal knowledge
6 questions in issue. I did ask you specifically if it was a 408
7 issue, and you said yes. You're on your feet, of course, now,
8 and have to respond to me quoting a Second Circuit decision at
9 you. And, of course, district courts are required to follow
10 Second Circuit precedent even if its intention was subsequent
11 changes in the law, unless and until the case is reconsidered
12 by the Second Circuit sitting en banc or its equivalent or is
13 rejected by a later Supreme Court decision.
14 So I do think there may be a question of the change in
15 the rule and what the scope of that was and whether it
16 overturns the Second Circuit decision such that I'm not bound
17 by it. I doubt it. Separate and apart from that is the
18 question of whether she has personal knowledge of what her
19 attorneys did, right.
20 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: It's not a 408 issue, it's a foundation
22 question, personal knowledge question.
23 Ms. Menninger made an argument that in the civil
24 litigation context, she could be assumed to have adopted the
25 position of her attorneys. I think we do get to that bridge,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017692
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document