DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
628 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
628 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, before a judge. The discussion centers on the extent to which the defense can question the thoroughness of the government's investigation and comment on the absence of evidence. The judge clarifies that while direct testimony about why certain investigative steps were or were not taken is restricted, the defense is permitted to make arguments to the jury based on the absence of evidence.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
Speaker in the court transcript, arguing a point about evidence.
|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Attorney |
Speaker in the court transcript, responding to Mr. Everdell and referencing the Court's prior rulings.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the court transcript, clarifying a ruling on testimony and cross-examination.
|
| special agent | government's case agent |
Mentioned as a potential witness from whom testimony cannot be elicited about certain investigative steps.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting service.
|
| government | government agency |
Referred to throughout as a party in the legal case, responsible for the investigation.
|
| defense | legal team |
Referred to as the opposing party to the government, seeking to question the investigation.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach before the Court regarding the scope of testimony and closing arguments concerning the government's investigation.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
They are opposing attorneys in a court case, arguing different interpretations of the court's rulings.
Mr. Everdell addresses the Court as 'Your Honor' and presents his legal arguments for a ruling.
Mr. Rohrbach addresses the Court as 'your Honor' and references the Court's prior rulings to support his position.
Key Quotes (3)
"One is that the defense can't elicit direct testimony about investigative steps that the government did or did not take. And the other is defense can't elicit direct testimony about the thoroughness of the government's investigation."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Summarizing the Court's prior rulings on the subject of testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, I believe I am allowed to comment on the absence of evidence. I'm allowed to put that in through a witness if I choose and this is the witness to do it."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Arguing for his right to question a witness about the lack of certain evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
Quote #2
"The absence of evidence is arguments that you can make comments on, of course, and seek the jury to conclude from it what it likes in the course of its"Source
— THE COURT
(Clarifying that while direct testimony on investigative choices may be limited, arguing the absence of evidence to the jury is permissible.)
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,999 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 33 of 197
LCFCmax1
2574
LCFCmax1
2574
1 MR. EVERDELL: Phone records, geo location
2 information, things like that.
3 MR. ROHRBACH: This implicates at least two of the
4 Court's rulings on the subject. One is that the defense can't
5 elicit direct testimony about investigative steps that the
6 government did or did not take. And the other is defense can't
7 elicit direct testimony about the thoroughness of the
8 government's investigation. As your Honor ruled, they can say
9 in their closing there is no email evidence before you that
10 goes to defendant's guilt or innocence, but they can't elicit
11 testimony from the special agent, the government's case agent
12 about the steps the government did or did not take or why the
13 government did or did not take them and what that says about
14 the thoroughness of the government's investigation.
15 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I believe I am allowed to
16 comment on the absence of evidence. I'm allowed to put that in
17 through a witness if I choose and this is the witness to do it.
18 THE COURT: Not inconsistent with my ruling.
19 MR. EVERDELL: I understand that, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: I'll pull it up and look again, but with
21 respect to the ability to cross examine witnesses put on to
22 show the thoroughness of the investigation, you can cross on
23 the failure to do that. The absence of evidence is arguments
24 that you can make comments on, of course, and seek the jury to
25 conclude from it what it likes in the course of its
2 information, things like that.
3 MR. ROHRBACH: This implicates at least two of the
4 Court's rulings on the subject. One is that the defense can't
5 elicit direct testimony about investigative steps that the
6 government did or did not take. And the other is defense can't
7 elicit direct testimony about the thoroughness of the
8 government's investigation. As your Honor ruled, they can say
9 in their closing there is no email evidence before you that
10 goes to defendant's guilt or innocence, but they can't elicit
11 testimony from the special agent, the government's case agent
12 about the steps the government did or did not take or why the
13 government did or did not take them and what that says about
14 the thoroughness of the government's investigation.
15 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I believe I am allowed to
16 comment on the absence of evidence. I'm allowed to put that in
17 through a witness if I choose and this is the witness to do it.
18 THE COURT: Not inconsistent with my ruling.
19 MR. EVERDELL: I understand that, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: I'll pull it up and look again, but with
21 respect to the ability to cross examine witnesses put on to
22 show the thoroughness of the investigation, you can cross on
23 the failure to do that. The absence of evidence is arguments
24 that you can make comments on, of course, and seek the jury to
25 conclude from it what it likes in the course of its
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016762
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document