DOJ-OGR-00018355.jpg
603 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
603 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and the judge. Attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the relevance of questioning a witness about their attorney, who is present in the courtroom. Sternheim contends that the attorney's role in the 'Epstein Fund' and the fact that he wrote a book about the witness's story are pertinent facts for the jury to consider during cross-examination.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing that questions about the witness's attorney's name and identity are irrelevant.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, questioning the relevance of the line of questioning about the witness's attorney.
|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing for the relevance of questioning a witness about their attorney, citing the attorn...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein Fund | fund |
Mentioned as a fund that the witness's attorney was instrumental in starting.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument during a court proceeding about the relevance of cross-examination questions directed at a witness regarding their attorney. The attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that the jury should know about the witness's attorney's involvement in the Epstein Fund and a book written about the witness.
courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned multiple times as the location of the testimony and legal proceedings.
|
Relationships (2)
Unnamed Client/Witness
→
professional
→
Unnamed Attorney
The document describes an attorney who is present for their client's testimony, sat through proffer sessions with her, and wrote about her in a book.
They are presented as opposing counsel arguing different sides of a legal point before the court.
Key Quotes (2)
"The relevance is that this is an attorney who sat through the proffer sessions with her, this is the attorney who was instrumental in starting the Epstein Fund, this is an attorney who has written about her while this case is pending in his own book."Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Explaining to the court why she believes questioning a witness about their attorney is relevant to the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00018355.jpg
Quote #1
"I think that she has agreed to have her story put in a book, not in her own name, and I'm not going to make reference to her name, but I think all of these things are fair game."Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Arguing that the witness's consent to have her story published makes the topic a fair subject for cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00018355.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,544 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 261 1158
LC6Cmax1
LC6Cmax1
1 years in practice, I have never been in the courtroom when my
2 client testifies for this very reason.
3 MR. ROHRBACH: The government wouldn't object to the
4 question, is your attorney in the courtroom today. It's the
5 additional, what is the name of your attorney, can you point
6 out your attorney to the jury, those questions the government
7 thinks has no relevance.
8 THE COURT: I agree. Are you represented, is your
9 attorney here, I've certainly seen witnesses testify with their
10 attorney in the room. So beyond that, what's the relevance of
11 the attorney --
12 MS. STERNHEIM: The relevance is that this is an
13 attorney who sat through the proffer sessions with her, this is
14 the attorney who was instrumental in starting the Epstein Fund,
15 this is an attorney who has written about her while this case
16 is pending in his own book. There is a tremendous amount of
17 handling that is going on and I think the jury is entitled to
18 know that.
19 THE COURT: How is that information going to --
20 MS. STERNHEIM: I'm going to ask her questions about,
21 the book is public, she's in the book. I think that she has
22 agreed to have her story put in a book, not in her own name,
23 and I'm not going to make reference to her name, but I think
24 all of these things are fair game. There are many other topics
25 that I will be raising prior to my cross examination. This is
2 client testifies for this very reason.
3 MR. ROHRBACH: The government wouldn't object to the
4 question, is your attorney in the courtroom today. It's the
5 additional, what is the name of your attorney, can you point
6 out your attorney to the jury, those questions the government
7 thinks has no relevance.
8 THE COURT: I agree. Are you represented, is your
9 attorney here, I've certainly seen witnesses testify with their
10 attorney in the room. So beyond that, what's the relevance of
11 the attorney --
12 MS. STERNHEIM: The relevance is that this is an
13 attorney who sat through the proffer sessions with her, this is
14 the attorney who was instrumental in starting the Epstein Fund,
15 this is an attorney who has written about her while this case
16 is pending in his own book. There is a tremendous amount of
17 handling that is going on and I think the jury is entitled to
18 know that.
19 THE COURT: How is that information going to --
20 MS. STERNHEIM: I'm going to ask her questions about,
21 the book is public, she's in the book. I think that she has
22 agreed to have her story put in a book, not in her own name,
23 and I'm not going to make reference to her name, but I think
24 all of these things are fair game. There are many other topics
25 that I will be raising prior to my cross examination. This is
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018355
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document