DOJ-OGR-00021555.jpg
533 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
533 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, where a judge is ruling on several objections. The judge finds Carolyn's testimony about being paid by the defendant to be credible and overrules objections regarding the mention of a person named Kate and the characterization of the defendant having groomed another person named Jane. The judge's rulings suggest a denial of motions that were likely filed by the defense.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Mentioned as having credibly testified that she was paid twice as much by the defendant for bringing friends to massa...
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal proceedings, accused of paying Carolyn and Virginia, and grooming Jane.
|
| Virginia |
Mentioned as likely having been paid by the defendant as encouragement to recruit additional girls.
|
|
| Kate | Person of interest |
The subject of an objection to her inclusion in paragraph 9. The court notes she is not a victim of the crimes charge...
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
An attorney who addresses the court, interrupting to clarify which paragraph is being discussed.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The speaker who is ruling on objections, presumably the judge presiding over the case.
|
| Jane | Victim |
Mentioned in relation to objections about the defendant's characterization of having groomed her.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of the trial, with the court agreeing with its position on the objection regarding grooming.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2023-06-29
A judge (THE COURT) is issuing rulings on objections raised by an attorney (MR. EVERDELL) regarding specific paragraphs of a document related to a trial.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (4)
The defendant paid Carolyn directly, and paid her more for bringing friends to massages.
The defendant paid Virginia more as an encouragement to recruit other girls.
The document discusses the 'characterization of the defendant having groomed Jane'.
Their formal dialogue within a court proceeding ('Your Honor').
Key Quotes (4)
"Carolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as much when she brought friends to the massages."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's finding based on testimony presented in the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021555.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I think you said paragraph 9."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(An attorney clarifying a point with the judge during the proceeding.)
DOJ-OGR-00021555.jpg
Quote #2
"I overrule this objection because the paragraph doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment, and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's ruling and reasoning for overruling an objection to the inclusion of Kate's name in a document.)
DOJ-OGR-00021555.jpg
Quote #3
"I overrule these objections. I think the government is right here that the objection is conflating grooming with enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's ruling on objections related to the characterization of the defendant having groomed Jane.)
DOJ-OGR-00021555.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,528 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page125 of 217
SA-379
10
M6SQmax1
1 Carolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as
2 much when she brought friends to the massages. Based on the
3 defendant's control of household and Carolyn's testimony that
4 the defendant on occasion paid her directly, I find it more
5 probable than not by a preponderance of the evidence that
6 Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit
7 additional girls.
8 Paragraph 9, there's an objection to the inclusion of
9 Kate in this paragraph. It argues that her name should be
10 deleted because Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in
11 the indictment.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I
13 think you said paragraph 9.
14 THE COURT: I did. I'm sorry. I'm skipping the first
15 number for some reason. 29. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.
16 I overrule this objection because the paragraph
17 doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've
18 discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend
19 that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment,
20 and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was.
21 Paragraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout
22 these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed
23 Jane. I overrule these objections. I think the government is
24 right here that the objection is conflating grooming with
25 enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•••
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021555
SA-379
10
M6SQmax1
1 Carolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as
2 much when she brought friends to the massages. Based on the
3 defendant's control of household and Carolyn's testimony that
4 the defendant on occasion paid her directly, I find it more
5 probable than not by a preponderance of the evidence that
6 Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit
7 additional girls.
8 Paragraph 9, there's an objection to the inclusion of
9 Kate in this paragraph. It argues that her name should be
10 deleted because Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in
11 the indictment.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I
13 think you said paragraph 9.
14 THE COURT: I did. I'm sorry. I'm skipping the first
15 number for some reason. 29. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.
16 I overrule this objection because the paragraph
17 doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've
18 discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend
19 that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment,
20 and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was.
21 Paragraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout
22 these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed
23 Jane. I overrule these objections. I think the government is
24 right here that the objection is conflating grooming with
25 enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•••
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021555
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document