DOJ-OGR-00016632.jpg
595 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
595 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The core issue is whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias. The discussion references the legal precedent set in *United States v. Harvey* and focuses on whether a specific statement, "it fell into my lap," is sufficient to create an inference of bias for the jury.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing for the introduction of evidence.
|
| Kate | Witness |
Her testimony is the subject of a legal argument regarding impeachment.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, presiding over the legal argument.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing against the other party's proposition.
|
| Harvey |
Named in the legal case citation "United States v. Harvey".
|
|
| Loftus |
Mentioned in the header, possibly a witness or party in the case.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned as the court that decided the case United States v. Harvey.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place regarding the use of extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness's testimony based on potential bias.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
They are opposing counsel in a legal argument before the court, presenting different interpretations of the law and evidence.
Ms. Sternheim is an attorney making an argument to the judge (THE COURT).
Mr. Rohrbach is an attorney responding to the judge's (THE COURT) questions and arguments, addressing the judge as 'your Honor'.
Key Quotes (3)
"...that a cross examiner is not required to, quote, take the answer, end quote, of a witness concerning possible bias, but may proffer extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses to prove the facts showing a bias in favor of or against a party."Source
— THE COURT
(Quoting from the Second Circuit case United States v. Harvey to state the law on impeaching a witness with extrinsic evidence for bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00016632.jpg
Quote #1
"it fell into my lap."Source
— Unknown witness (possibly Kate)
(A statement from testimony that is being debated as to whether it creates an inference of bias for the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00016632.jpg
Quote #2
"That's right, your Honor. That inference only becomes available when that statement is"Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Agreeing with the Court's summary of his legal position.)
DOJ-OGR-00016632.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,512 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 149 of 246 2444
LCGCmax4 Loftus - direct
LCGCmax4 Loftus - direct
1 making an argument about witness bias, which is just, you know,
2 we're not raising a Rule 16 objection, it's just to show the
3 purpose for which this testimony is being used is extrinsic
4 evidence to impeach Kate's testimony.
5 MS. STERNHEIM: The papers that we filed last night
6 specifically state the basis upon which we are seeking to
7 introduce this. I made this available at the time of the
8 testimony. It is dated at a time that occurred during the
9 course of the trial related to the testimony of their witness.
10 I don't see why it is a Rule 16 violation --
11 THE COURT: Well, I think they're not actually arguing
12 that.
13 So, Mr. Rohrbach, for the proposition that the denial
14 can't be impeached by extrinsic evidence, cited Second Circuit
15 case, United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, "...that a cross
16 examiner is not required to, quote, take the answer, end quote,
17 of a witness concerning possible bias, but may proffer
18 extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses
19 to prove the facts showing a bias in favor of or against a
20 party.
21 You agree that's the law, you're just saying that
22 there is not an available inference to the jury of bias from
23 the "it fell into my lap."
24 MR. ROHRBACH: That's right, your Honor. That
25 inference only becomes available when that statement is
2 we're not raising a Rule 16 objection, it's just to show the
3 purpose for which this testimony is being used is extrinsic
4 evidence to impeach Kate's testimony.
5 MS. STERNHEIM: The papers that we filed last night
6 specifically state the basis upon which we are seeking to
7 introduce this. I made this available at the time of the
8 testimony. It is dated at a time that occurred during the
9 course of the trial related to the testimony of their witness.
10 I don't see why it is a Rule 16 violation --
11 THE COURT: Well, I think they're not actually arguing
12 that.
13 So, Mr. Rohrbach, for the proposition that the denial
14 can't be impeached by extrinsic evidence, cited Second Circuit
15 case, United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, "...that a cross
16 examiner is not required to, quote, take the answer, end quote,
17 of a witness concerning possible bias, but may proffer
18 extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses
19 to prove the facts showing a bias in favor of or against a
20 party.
21 You agree that's the law, you're just saying that
22 there is not an available inference to the jury of bias from
23 the "it fell into my lap."
24 MR. ROHRBACH: That's right, your Honor. That
25 inference only becomes available when that statement is
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016632
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document