DOJ-OGR-00014559.jpg
616 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
616 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a trial, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding the permissible scope of closing arguments made by the defense attorney, Ms. Menninger. The core issue is whether Ms. Menninger improperly argued that the government was substituting the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, potentially violating the court's prior rulings on how Epstein could be mentioned in relation to witness credibility.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of an argument that the defendant was a substitute for him, and that his death was a factor ...
|
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney |
Mentioned as having advanced an argument to the jury in her closing summation, which is being discussed by the Court ...
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, clarifying pretrial rulings and the lines of permissible argumentation during the trial.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, addressing the Court about an argument made by Ms. Menninger during summation.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as the person the government was allegedly substituting for Mr. Epstein in an argument.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal proceedings, accused in a summation argument of substituting Ms. Maxwell for Mr. Ep...
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion during a trial about the scope of permissible arguments made to the jury during closing summations, specifically concerning Jeffrey Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and witness credibility.
Relationships (3)
The document discusses a legal argument that Ms. Maxwell was a "substitute for Jeffrey Epstein," implying a close connection relevant to the case.
Ms. Menninger made a closing argument in a case where Ms. Maxwell is the defendant, suggesting she is Ms. Maxwell's defense attorney.
Ms. Moe speaks about arguments concerning "the government" and objects to the defense's arguments, indicating she is an attorney representing the government (prosecution).
Key Quotes (3)
"Not with respect to motivation for the witness's testimony."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge clarifying the scope of a previous ruling regarding arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00014559.jpg
Quote #1
"they made the argument that Epstein's death is a factor in the motivation for the changing the stories, which is what I said was -- to the extent that arguments go to the credibility of witnesses, that's where I drew the line."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge explaining a specific ruling on permissible arguments related to Jeffrey Epstein's death and witness credibility.)
DOJ-OGR-00014559.jpg
Quote #2
"I was referring to the argument early in Ms. Menninger's summation about I took to mean an argument that the government was substituting Ms. Maxwell for Mr. Epstein."Source
— MS. MOE
(An attorney explaining to the judge the specific part of the opposing counsel's closing argument she found objectionable.)
DOJ-OGR-00014559.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,568 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 159 of 257
LCKCmax7
LCKCmax7
1 preclude any arguments to the jury that the defendant was a
2 substitute for Jeffrey Epstein. That's the exact argument that
3 Ms. Menninger advanced to the jury in closing, which the Court
4 precluded.
5 THE COURT: Not with respect to motivation for the
6 witness's testimony. There is a reason I gave -- for both
7 sides, you've both now done this, which is basically to reargue
8 sort of precisely the line that I crafted and ruled on in my
9 pretrial rulings. I have maintained those lines throughout
10 trial with a couple of exceptions where there was a little bit
11 of door opening and the like, but I don't have in mind, yes,
12 they made the argument that Epstein's death is a factor in the
13 motivation for the changing the stories, which is what I said
14 was -- to the extent that arguments go to the credibility of
15 witnesses, that's where I drew the line.
16 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I was referring to the
17 argument early in Ms. Menninger's summation about I took to
18 mean an argument that the government was substituting
19 Ms. Maxwell for Mr. Epstein. Again, we want to review the
20 transcript, but that's how we heard it.
21 There were also arguments throughout summation about
22 the victims doing that, which I understand the Court has ruled
23 on that there is a difference between those two, but we think
24 where that crosses the line is an argument where the government
25 is doing that.
2 substitute for Jeffrey Epstein. That's the exact argument that
3 Ms. Menninger advanced to the jury in closing, which the Court
4 precluded.
5 THE COURT: Not with respect to motivation for the
6 witness's testimony. There is a reason I gave -- for both
7 sides, you've both now done this, which is basically to reargue
8 sort of precisely the line that I crafted and ruled on in my
9 pretrial rulings. I have maintained those lines throughout
10 trial with a couple of exceptions where there was a little bit
11 of door opening and the like, but I don't have in mind, yes,
12 they made the argument that Epstein's death is a factor in the
13 motivation for the changing the stories, which is what I said
14 was -- to the extent that arguments go to the credibility of
15 witnesses, that's where I drew the line.
16 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I was referring to the
17 argument early in Ms. Menninger's summation about I took to
18 mean an argument that the government was substituting
19 Ms. Maxwell for Mr. Epstein. Again, we want to review the
20 transcript, but that's how we heard it.
21 There were also arguments throughout summation about
22 the victims doing that, which I understand the Court has ruled
23 on that there is a difference between those two, but we think
24 where that crosses the line is an argument where the government
25 is doing that.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014559
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document