DOJ-OGR-00017821.jpg
591 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
591 KB
Summary
This court transcript page from August 10, 2022, documents a legal argument between attorney Ms. Sternheim and the judge during the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. The core of the dispute is whether the use of the term 'girls' versus 'women' is a significant distinction, with Ms. Sternheim arguing that 'girls' improperly implies the subjects are minors, which supports the government's theory of the case in a way that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Attorney (implied) |
Arguing a point of law and testimony with the judge, specifically regarding the distinction between the words 'girl' ...
|
| THE COURT | Judge (implied) |
Engaging in a colloquy with Ms. Sternheim, questioning her interpretation of testimony and recalling prior statements...
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the witness undergoing redirect examination. Her testimony is the subject of the discussion.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 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 between Ms. Sternheim and the Court during the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on the significance of the witness's use of the terms 'women' versus 'girls' and its implication for the government's case theory.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (1)
The document shows a formal legal debate between Ms. Sternheim and the Court. Ms. Sternheim directly disagrees with the judge ('Judge, I disagree.') and they argue over the interpretation and admissibility of witness testimony.
Key Quotes (4)
"Judge, I disagree. The distinction between a girl and a woman is precisely what this case is about, and she was very clear that she felt like she was the only one. The other people were women."Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Responding to the Court's position on a prior consistent statement.)
DOJ-OGR-00017821.jpg
Quote #1
"She said she didn't know what their ages were."Source
— THE COURT
(Correcting or clarifying the witness's testimony in response to Ms. Sternheim.)
DOJ-OGR-00017821.jpg
Quote #2
"But wasn't the recent testimony, I think it was on cross, which was: Were there underage girls. And she said, "I wouldn't know the ages.""Source
— THE COURT
(Recalling specific prior testimony from the witness during cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00017821.jpg
Quote #3
"That's fine, but to call them girls connotes that they are minors, and that parlays right into the government's theory of the case, and they're bringing it out through a witness whose sole purpose is substantiated prior consistent statement, and that is not consistent with the testimony that we've heard."Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Explaining the legal objection to the terminology being used, arguing it improperly supports the government's case.)
DOJ-OGR-00017821.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,491 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 212 of 264 623
LC1Qmax6 Jane - Redirect
LC1Qmax6 Jane - Redirect
1 that, but again, we're talking about a number of conversations
2 during this time period. That's my current expectation. But I
3 think with respect to I think some of the granular issues, the
4 difference between woman and girls, I think, especially in this
5 context is not so different that it would not be a prior
6 consistent statement. And beyond that, your Honor, we think
7 this tracks the rule.
8 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I disagree. The distinction
9 between a girl and a woman is precisely what this case is
10 about, and she was very clear that she felt like she was the
11 only one. The other people were women.
12 THE COURT: She said she didn't know what their ages
13 were.
14 MS. STERNHEIM: She didn't know their ages, but she
15 did not refer to them as girls.
16 THE COURT: But wasn't the recent testimony, I think
17 it was on cross, which was: Were there underage girls. And
18 she said, "I wouldn't know the ages."
19 MS. STERNHEIM: That's fine, but to call them girls
20 connotes that they are minors, and that parlays right into the
21 government's theory of the case, and they're bringing it out
22 through a witness whose sole purpose is substantiated prior
23 consistent statement, and that is not consistent with the
24 testimony that we've heard.
25 If he wants to say there were prior women, I can't
2 during this time period. That's my current expectation. But I
3 think with respect to I think some of the granular issues, the
4 difference between woman and girls, I think, especially in this
5 context is not so different that it would not be a prior
6 consistent statement. And beyond that, your Honor, we think
7 this tracks the rule.
8 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I disagree. The distinction
9 between a girl and a woman is precisely what this case is
10 about, and she was very clear that she felt like she was the
11 only one. The other people were women.
12 THE COURT: She said she didn't know what their ages
13 were.
14 MS. STERNHEIM: She didn't know their ages, but she
15 did not refer to them as girls.
16 THE COURT: But wasn't the recent testimony, I think
17 it was on cross, which was: Were there underage girls. And
18 she said, "I wouldn't know the ages."
19 MS. STERNHEIM: That's fine, but to call them girls
20 connotes that they are minors, and that parlays right into the
21 government's theory of the case, and they're bringing it out
22 through a witness whose sole purpose is substantiated prior
23 consistent statement, and that is not consistent with the
24 testimony that we've heard.
25 If he wants to say there were prior women, I can't
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017821
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document