DOJ-OGR-00017686.jpg
586 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
586 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and a judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The core issue is whether questions about a $25 million settlement demand, made by the witness in a civil case, are admissible under Rule 408 to show bias, particularly as the demand was made while a related criminal case against Ms. Maxwell was pending. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues the questions are proper to show bias, while attorney Ms. Moe seeks to limit the scope of the examination.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, presiding over the case and interacting with the attorneys.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing about the scope of questioning under Rule 408.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, explaining her intended line of questioning regarding a settlement demand.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of the cross-examination.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant in a criminal case |
Mentioned as having a pending criminal case at the time the witness was demanding a civil settlement.
|
| Unnamed attorney | Lawyer |
Described as the attorney for the witness in a civil matter who demanded sums of money on her behalf.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-08-10
A cross-examination of a witness named Jane, during which attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger argue before the judge about the admissibility of questions regarding a civil settlement demand under Rule 408.
Courtroom in the Southern District
A pending criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
|
Relationships (3)
The document states, regarding the witness and the attorney in the civil case, "he was her lawyer."
The witness ('Jane') had a civil claim for which she demanded $25 million, seemingly against Ms. Maxwell or a related party, while Ms. Maxwell was a defendant in a criminal case.
Ms. Menninger is conducting a cross-examination of the witness, Jane, and seeking to ask questions that imply bias.
Key Quotes (3)
"It's a 408 issue to the extent the questions are about negotiations related to settlements which would only be admissible in order to show bias under the second prong of the rule."Source
— MS. MOE
(Arguing the legal basis for limiting the scope of questioning about settlement negotiations.)
DOJ-OGR-00017686.jpg
Quote #1
"You were demanding $25 million to settle your civil law claim while Ms. Maxwell was pending in this criminal case, I might add."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Stating the question she intends to ask the witness to establish bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00017686.jpg
Quote #2
"So his statements are adoptive admissions by the party from that case that she was demanding the money that's claimed in that letter."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Justifying why the statements of the witness's former attorney are attributable to the witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00017686.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,459 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 77 of 264 483
LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross
LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross
1 THE COURT: So that's not a 408 issue, it's a scope of
2 knowledge issue.
3 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
4 It's a 408 issue to the extent the questions are about
5 negotiations related to settlements which would only be
6 admissible in order to show bias under the second prong of the
7 rule. And that's where the scope of knowledge issue comes into
8 play, because facts along those lines would only be relevant
9 under Rule 408 if this witness were aware of them. So we just
10 wanted to make sure any examination was cabined along those
11 lines.
12 THE COURT: Ms. Menninger?
13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in those two documents,
14 the attorney in a civil matter for this witness demanded sums
15 of money. And there was one in the civil case. He was acting
16 in his capacity, and she was a party in that case, and he was
17 her lawyer. So his statements are adoptive admissions by the
18 party from that case that she was demanding the money that's
19 claimed in that letter. That's the first one.
20 THE COURT: And so what do you expect to do? You
21 expect to ask what?
22 MS. MENNINGER: You were demanding $25 million to
23 settle your civil law claim while Ms. Maxwell was pending in
24 this criminal case, I might add. That's the first one.
25 THE COURT: Okay. So the question is, Were you
2 knowledge issue.
3 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
4 It's a 408 issue to the extent the questions are about
5 negotiations related to settlements which would only be
6 admissible in order to show bias under the second prong of the
7 rule. And that's where the scope of knowledge issue comes into
8 play, because facts along those lines would only be relevant
9 under Rule 408 if this witness were aware of them. So we just
10 wanted to make sure any examination was cabined along those
11 lines.
12 THE COURT: Ms. Menninger?
13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in those two documents,
14 the attorney in a civil matter for this witness demanded sums
15 of money. And there was one in the civil case. He was acting
16 in his capacity, and she was a party in that case, and he was
17 her lawyer. So his statements are adoptive admissions by the
18 party from that case that she was demanding the money that's
19 claimed in that letter. That's the first one.
20 THE COURT: And so what do you expect to do? You
21 expect to ask what?
22 MS. MENNINGER: You were demanding $25 million to
23 settle your civil law claim while Ms. Maxwell was pending in
24 this criminal case, I might add. That's the first one.
25 THE COURT: Okay. So the question is, Were you
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017686
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document