DOJ-OGR-00012999.jpg
643 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
643 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues against the admissibility of certain photographs as evidence. She contends that unlike items seized by law enforcement, photographs require a witness to provide context, confirm they are unaltered, and testify to what they depict, especially when they are undated.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MENNINGER | Speaker (likely an attorney) |
Arguing before a judge ('Your Honor') about the admissibility of photographic evidence in criminal cases.
|
| Meder | Subject of testimony |
Mentioned in the header as 'Meder - direct', indicating this transcript is from the direct examination of a witness n...
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Being addressed by Ms. Menninger during her legal argument.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting agency that produced the transcript.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument concerning the admissibility of undated photographs as evidence in a criminal case.
Courtroom
Relationships (1)
Ms. Menninger, likely an attorney, is formally addressing the judge ('Your Honor') in a court proceeding to make a legal argument.
Key Quotes (3)
"Your Honor, in many criminal cases, there are lots of context over what photographs are admissible and for what purpose."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Introducing her argument on the rules for admitting photographic evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00012999.jpg
Quote #1
"Just showing photographs that are undated, they may be from 1975 for all I know, and showed the two of them together and there is no one to say that it hasn't been altered in the meantime, even the low bar of showing that the photograph is a photograph and without a witness to say it is what it purported to be, I don't think that that is true with respect to what is admissible for a photograph."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Making the case that without a witness, undated photographs lack the necessary foundation for admissibility.)
DOJ-OGR-00012999.jpg
Quote #2
"It's a low bar, but there is not even a single person that can say that this photograph or the ones behind it are what they purport to be."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Concluding her point that the evidence in question fails to meet even the minimum standard for authentication.)
DOJ-OGR-00012999.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,639 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 248 of 261 1409
Meder - direct
Meder - direct
1 emails or took the photographs or were in the photographs could
2 testify and identify themselves, no such evidence would ever be
3 offered in court. But of course that's not what happens. All
4 we do is we offer law enforcement agents who seized these items
5 and can authenticate them, and if defense wants to make
6 arguments to their relevance or otherwise, that goes to their
7 weight and not their admissibility, and those arguments are for
8 the jury.
9 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in many criminal cases,
10 there are lots of context over what photographs are admissible
11 and for what purpose. For example, if it was a photograph that
12 was taken inside of a store when there was a robbery that
13 purported to take place in the store, there would be a witness
14 to say that this photograph was taken in or near the events and
15 that we have reason to believe that nothing inside the store
16 has changed. Just showing photographs that are undated, they
17 may be from 1975 for all I know, and showed the two of them
18 together and there is no one to say that it hasn't been altered
19 in the meantime, even the low bar of showing that the
20 photograph is a photograph and without a witness to say it is
21 what it purported to be, I don't think that that is true with
22 respect to what is admissible for a photograph. It's a low
23 bar, but there is not even a single person that can say that
24 this photograph or the ones behind it are what they purport to
25 be.
2 testify and identify themselves, no such evidence would ever be
3 offered in court. But of course that's not what happens. All
4 we do is we offer law enforcement agents who seized these items
5 and can authenticate them, and if defense wants to make
6 arguments to their relevance or otherwise, that goes to their
7 weight and not their admissibility, and those arguments are for
8 the jury.
9 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in many criminal cases,
10 there are lots of context over what photographs are admissible
11 and for what purpose. For example, if it was a photograph that
12 was taken inside of a store when there was a robbery that
13 purported to take place in the store, there would be a witness
14 to say that this photograph was taken in or near the events and
15 that we have reason to believe that nothing inside the store
16 has changed. Just showing photographs that are undated, they
17 may be from 1975 for all I know, and showed the two of them
18 together and there is no one to say that it hasn't been altered
19 in the meantime, even the low bar of showing that the
20 photograph is a photograph and without a witness to say it is
21 what it purported to be, I don't think that that is true with
22 respect to what is admissible for a photograph. It's a low
23 bar, but there is not even a single person that can say that
24 this photograph or the ones behind it are what they purport to
25 be.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00012999
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document