DOJ-OGR-00013214.jpg
589 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
589 KB
Summary
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, documenting a legal argument between counsel, Ms. Comey, and the judge. Ms. Comey objects to admitting a document (C4), arguing it was drafted by lawyers and would confuse the jury, but the judge overrules the objection. The transcript also references another document (C5) which alleges an agreement between defendant Epstein, his employee Kellen, and others to facilitate a crime.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Subject of cross-examination |
Mentioned in the header: "Carolyn - cross"
|
| MS. COMEY | Counsel |
A speaker in the transcript, arguing against the inclusion of a document.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, making rulings on objections.
|
| Kellen | Employee/Assistant |
Mentioned as one of defendant Epstein's employees or assistants in paragraph 12 of a document.
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
Referenced as the defendant in the case.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states, "Kellen is one of defendant Epstein's employees, assistants".
Key Quotes (4)
"Your Honor, my concern would be that these are crafted by lawyers in order to satisfy the elements of particular causes of action."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Stating her objection to the admission of a document.)
DOJ-OGR-00013214.jpg
Quote #1
"It will confuse the issues and it's not written in a narrative form and it wasn't offered by this witness, and I think it would confuse the issues to start putting these words in that her attorneys wrote. She did not write this."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Elaborating on her objection to a document.)
DOJ-OGR-00013214.jpg
Quote #2
"So at least with respect to this document C4, I'm going to overrule the objection."Source
— THE COURT
(Making a ruling on the admissibility of document C4.)
DOJ-OGR-00013214.jpg
Quote #3
"Kellen is one of defendant Epstein's employees, assistants referenced in paragraph 12. Epstein, Kellen, and others reached an agreement between themselves for the purposes of allowing defendant Epstein to commit the"Source
— THE COURT
(Reading from or describing the contents of document C5, which is considered to be in a 'different position' than C4.)
DOJ-OGR-00013214.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,508 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 201 of 264 1642
LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross
LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross
1 counsel. And on a 401, 403, it is already in, it's a document.
2 So it's really a cumulative argument. The point that you want
3 to make, I presume you'll make on redirect. Since the point
4 has already been made, I don't see that there is tremendous
5 prejudice in including the document itself.
6 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, my concern would be that these
7 are crafted by lawyers in order to satisfy the elements of
8 particular causes of action.
9 THE COURT: Right.
10 MS. COMEY: It will confuse the issues and it's not
11 written in a narrative form and it wasn't offered by this
12 witness, and I think it would confuse the issues to start
13 putting these words in that her attorneys wrote. She did not
14 write this.
15 THE COURT: I think those are fine redirect points.
16 We've already established the 401 of the omission, I don't
17 think it causes substantial 403 prejudice, and you're going to
18 make those redirect points in any event. So at least with
19 respect to this document C4, I'm going to overrule the
20 objection.
21 C5, I think might be in a different position. I mean,
22 206 says, expressly, Kellen is one of defendant Epstein's
23 employees, assistants referenced in paragraph 12. Epstein,
24 Kellen, and others reached an agreement between themselves for
25 the purposes of allowing defendant Epstein to commit the
2 So it's really a cumulative argument. The point that you want
3 to make, I presume you'll make on redirect. Since the point
4 has already been made, I don't see that there is tremendous
5 prejudice in including the document itself.
6 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, my concern would be that these
7 are crafted by lawyers in order to satisfy the elements of
8 particular causes of action.
9 THE COURT: Right.
10 MS. COMEY: It will confuse the issues and it's not
11 written in a narrative form and it wasn't offered by this
12 witness, and I think it would confuse the issues to start
13 putting these words in that her attorneys wrote. She did not
14 write this.
15 THE COURT: I think those are fine redirect points.
16 We've already established the 401 of the omission, I don't
17 think it causes substantial 403 prejudice, and you're going to
18 make those redirect points in any event. So at least with
19 respect to this document C4, I'm going to overrule the
20 objection.
21 C5, I think might be in a different position. I mean,
22 206 says, expressly, Kellen is one of defendant Epstein's
23 employees, assistants referenced in paragraph 12. Epstein,
24 Kellen, and others reached an agreement between themselves for
25 the purposes of allowing defendant Epstein to commit the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013214
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document