DOJ-OGR-00016965.jpg
630 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
630 KB
Summary
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The conversation centers on the testimony of a witness named Jane regarding a single incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico and whether a specific limiting instruction should be added to the jury charge. The judge ultimately denies the request, stating that the defense failed to ask for it at the appropriate time and that the charge is based on a violation of New York law.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Speaker (likely an attorney) |
Speaks on line 7, stating his belief about Jane's testimony regarding an incident in New Mexico.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach as having testified about one incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico.
|
| Ms. Pomerantz | Unspecified (likely an attorney) |
Mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach as looking for something in the 3500 material.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaks on line 12, discussing the accuracy of jury instructions and ruling against adding a new one.
|
| Annie | Subject of testimony |
Mentioned by the Court as a person for whom limiting instructions were previously given.
|
| Kate | Subject of testimony |
Mentioned by the Court as a person for whom limiting instructions were previously given.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion in court between Mr. Rohrbach and the judge regarding testimony about events in New Mexico and the inclusion of limiting instructions in the jury charge.
Courtroom (implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location of trips and an alleged incident of sexual abuse testified to by Jane.
|
|
|
Mentioned by the Court in the context of the applicable law for the charges.
|
Relationships (2)
Mr. Rohrbach, an attorney, is presenting an argument to the judge (The Court) during a legal proceeding.
Jane is a witness whose testimony is being used in a case against a party represented by 'the defense'.
Key Quotes (3)
"I believe that Jane only testified as to one sexual incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico and that that was reflected in the 3500 material."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Clarifying the extent of a witness's testimony about events in New Mexico.)
DOJ-OGR-00016965.jpg
Quote #1
"This was the government's argument for not giving the limiting instructions that I gave with respect to Annie and Kate, but I did give those instructions."Source
— THE COURT
(Recalling the history of giving limiting instructions in the case despite the government's argument against it.)
DOJ-OGR-00016965.jpg
Quote #2
"Having not asked for a limiting instruction then I don't think provides a basis for inclusion of limiting instructions... So I'm not persuaded to include it."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's ruling and rationale for denying the request to add a limiting instruction to the jury charge.)
DOJ-OGR-00016965.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,691 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 39 of 95
LCI1MAX1
1 nothing happened on the New Mexico trips, and then I think it
2 came out in the testimony -- unless the government wants to
3 correct me if we're wrong about that, but I think that our
4 status of our knowledge was that we weren't expecting to hear
5 about testimony about sexual contact in New Mexico. But they
6 can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
7 MR. ROHRBACH: I believe that Jane only testified as
8 to one sexual incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico and that
9 that was reflected in the 3500 material. I think Ms. Pomerantz
10 is looking for it, but it should not have been a surprise to
11 the defense.
12 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, the problem -- the
13 instructions are accurate. It's clear it's a violation of New
14 York law. This was the government's argument for not giving
15 the limiting instructions that I gave with respect to Annie and
16 Kate, but I did give those instructions. It sounds like maybe
17 there was an instance in which the defense might have requested
18 one following a particular piece of testimony. To add that
19 now, having not -- well, let me put it this way. Having not
20 asked for a limiting instruction then I don't think provides a
21 basis for inclusion of limiting instructions, repetition of
22 limiting instructions in the charge, and even without it, which
23 was the government's original argument, it's clear that the
24 violation of law is as charged in New York. So I'm not
25 persuaded to include it. I'm not persuaded to include it.
LCI1MAX1
1 nothing happened on the New Mexico trips, and then I think it
2 came out in the testimony -- unless the government wants to
3 correct me if we're wrong about that, but I think that our
4 status of our knowledge was that we weren't expecting to hear
5 about testimony about sexual contact in New Mexico. But they
6 can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
7 MR. ROHRBACH: I believe that Jane only testified as
8 to one sexual incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico and that
9 that was reflected in the 3500 material. I think Ms. Pomerantz
10 is looking for it, but it should not have been a surprise to
11 the defense.
12 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, the problem -- the
13 instructions are accurate. It's clear it's a violation of New
14 York law. This was the government's argument for not giving
15 the limiting instructions that I gave with respect to Annie and
16 Kate, but I did give those instructions. It sounds like maybe
17 there was an instance in which the defense might have requested
18 one following a particular piece of testimony. To add that
19 now, having not -- well, let me put it this way. Having not
20 asked for a limiting instruction then I don't think provides a
21 basis for inclusion of limiting instructions, repetition of
22 limiting instructions in the charge, and even without it, which
23 was the government's original argument, it's clear that the
24 violation of law is as charged in New York. So I'm not
25 persuaded to include it. I'm not persuaded to include it.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016965
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document