DOJ-OGR-00013863.jpg
641 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
641 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a judicial ruling on the admissibility of certain testimony. The judge concludes that most information sought by the defense from three attorneys is irrelevant or prejudicial, but makes one exception. The judge will permit Mr. Glassman to be asked if he told the government that he had advised a witness, 'Jane', that testifying against Ms. Maxwell would help her civil claim against Ms. Maxwell and Epstein's estate, as this is relevant to the witness's potential bias.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Glassman |
A person whose testimony is being discussed. The judge will permit him to be asked a specific question regarding what...
|
|
| Jane | Witness |
A witness in the case whose testimony could be contradicted by Mr. Glassman's testimony. She has a civil case against...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of his estate, against which 'Jane' has a civil case.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
A person against whom 'Jane' has a civil case and is testifying against in the current case.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
| the government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, to whom Mr. Glassman allegedly made a statement.
|
| victims' compensation fund | fund |
A fund to which 'Jane' has a claim, which might be affected by her testimony.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A judge is ruling on the admissibility of testimony from attorneys, permitting one specific question to be asked of Mr. Glassman.
Relationships (3)
The document discusses what Mr. Glassman may have told Jane regarding the legal implications of her testimony, suggesting an advisory or professional relationship (e.g., attorney-client).
Jane is testifying against Ms. Maxwell in one case and has a separate civil case against her.
Key Quotes (1)
"Did you tell the government that you told Jane that cooperating with the government and testifying in this case would help her civil case against Epstein's estate and Ms. Maxwell and/or her claim to the victims' compensation fund?"Source
— The judge (as a permitted question)
(This is the specific question the judge will permit Mr. Glassman to be asked, as it is deemed relevant to potentially contradict Jane's testimony and show her motive.)
DOJ-OGR-00013863.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,633 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 246 2299
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 that any of these witnesses will testify to relevant
2 nonprivileged information that is not outweighed by prejudice,
3 it's possible to get such testimony.
4 After careful consideration, with one exception, the
5 information the defense seeks to elicit from the three
6 attorneys, I conclude, is either not relevant under Rule 401,
7 is duplicative of information elicited on cross-examination
8 and, therefore, outweighed by prejudice, or is only potentially
9 marginally relevant to the limited inference of impeachment so
10 as to be outweighed by 403 prejudice.
11 The one question I intend to permit is the one I
12 suggested the parties stipulate to testimony from Mr. Glassman.
13 I will permit Mr. Glassman to be asked the following: Did you
14 tell the government that you told Jane that cooperating with
15 the government and testifying in this case would help her civil
16 case against Epstein's estate and Ms. Maxwell and/or her claim
17 to the victims' compensation fund?
18 The question does not elicit privileged information
19 directly because it seeks only to know what Mr. Glassman told
20 the government. Unlike the other proffers, this testimony is
21 relevant because Mr. Glassman's testimony, if the answer is
22 yes, could contradict Jane's testimony and allow an inference
23 to the jury that at least at one point she may have been under
24 the impression that testifying would help her civil case
25 against Ms. Maxwell and her claim to the fund. With this
2 nonprivileged information that is not outweighed by prejudice,
3 it's possible to get such testimony.
4 After careful consideration, with one exception, the
5 information the defense seeks to elicit from the three
6 attorneys, I conclude, is either not relevant under Rule 401,
7 is duplicative of information elicited on cross-examination
8 and, therefore, outweighed by prejudice, or is only potentially
9 marginally relevant to the limited inference of impeachment so
10 as to be outweighed by 403 prejudice.
11 The one question I intend to permit is the one I
12 suggested the parties stipulate to testimony from Mr. Glassman.
13 I will permit Mr. Glassman to be asked the following: Did you
14 tell the government that you told Jane that cooperating with
15 the government and testifying in this case would help her civil
16 case against Epstein's estate and Ms. Maxwell and/or her claim
17 to the victims' compensation fund?
18 The question does not elicit privileged information
19 directly because it seeks only to know what Mr. Glassman told
20 the government. Unlike the other proffers, this testimony is
21 relevant because Mr. Glassman's testimony, if the answer is
22 yes, could contradict Jane's testimony and allow an inference
23 to the jury that at least at one point she may have been under
24 the impression that testifying would help her civil case
25 against Ms. Maxwell and her claim to the fund. With this
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013863
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document