DOJ-OGR-00013017.jpg
593 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
593 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the rules of witness sequestration, specifically concerning communications between two witnesses, Jane and Brian, who are implied to be family members. The judge questions the legality and propriety of sequestered witnesses being provided with trial transcripts, testing the boundaries of the sequestration order.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of communications with her and Brian, and being subject to recross-examination.
|
| Brian | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of communications with Jane and being subject to cross-examination about those communications.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, asking questions about witness sequestration and guidance from the government.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, responding to the court's questions.
|
| your Honor | Judge |
A term of address used by Ms. Moe when speaking to the court.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal proceeding, responsible for legal principles regarding witness communication and gu...
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of sequestered witnesses not being present in it.
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses 'communications between Jane and Brian' and immediately follows with a statement that no sequestration order 'prevents family members from talking to one another'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Did the government give any guidance?"Source
— THE COURT
(The court asking about instructions provided to sequestered witnesses.)
DOJ-OGR-00013017.jpg
Quote #1
"I have no awareness of whether that's occurred, your Honor."Source
— MS. MOE
(Responding to the court's question about whether a witness was provided with a trial transcript.)
DOJ-OGR-00013017.jpg
Quote #2
"There is no sequestration order that prevents family members from talking to one another; of course, it's not best practice."Source
— MS. MOE
(Explaining the legal stance on communications between witnesses who are family members, specifically regarding Jane and Brian.)
DOJ-OGR-00013017.jpg
Quote #3
"For example, I don't think a witness could be provided, consistent with a sequestration order, the transcript of trial testimony; and I wondered if the government agreed"Source
— THE COURT
(Posing a hypothetical to test the boundaries of the witness sequestration rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00013017.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,567 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 264 1426
LC7VMAX1
LC7VMAX1
1 has been fully complied with.
2 The other legal principle is that the government
3 cannot have substantive communications with Jane because she is
4 subject to recross about prior consistent statements. We have
5 not violated that legal principle either.
6 With respect to communications between Jane and Brian,
7 we have disclosed our awareness of that and defense counsel is
8 free to cross-examine Brian about those communications; that's
9 all the law requires. There is no sequestration order that
10 prevents family members from talking to one another; of course,
11 it's not best practice.
12 THE COURT: Did the government give any guidance?
13 Just on the first point, witnesses sequestered, so not
14 in the courtroom, could they be provided by another witness or
15 an attorney the transcript of the trial testimony?
16 MS. MOE: I have no awareness of whether that's
17 occurred, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: No, it's just to test the boundaries of
19 what you suggested in the first point, which is the only
20 question is whether they observed trial or not. And I don't
21 think -- I think that strikes me, I haven't looked at the law
22 on this, as an overstatement.
23 For example, I don't think a witness could be
24 provided, consistent with a sequestration order, the transcript
25 of trial testimony; and I wondered if the government agreed
2 The other legal principle is that the government
3 cannot have substantive communications with Jane because she is
4 subject to recross about prior consistent statements. We have
5 not violated that legal principle either.
6 With respect to communications between Jane and Brian,
7 we have disclosed our awareness of that and defense counsel is
8 free to cross-examine Brian about those communications; that's
9 all the law requires. There is no sequestration order that
10 prevents family members from talking to one another; of course,
11 it's not best practice.
12 THE COURT: Did the government give any guidance?
13 Just on the first point, witnesses sequestered, so not
14 in the courtroom, could they be provided by another witness or
15 an attorney the transcript of the trial testimony?
16 MS. MOE: I have no awareness of whether that's
17 occurred, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: No, it's just to test the boundaries of
19 what you suggested in the first point, which is the only
20 question is whether they observed trial or not. And I don't
21 think -- I think that strikes me, I haven't looked at the law
22 on this, as an overstatement.
23 For example, I don't think a witness could be
24 provided, consistent with a sequestration order, the transcript
25 of trial testimony; and I wondered if the government agreed
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013017
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document