DOJ-OGR-00016487.jpg
641 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
641 KB
Summary
This legal document is a judicial ruling from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge permits the defense to ask a witness, Mr. Glassman, a single, specific question about whether he told the government that he had informed another witness, Jane, that her testimony would benefit her civil case against Ms. Maxwell and Epstein's estate. The judge deems this question relevant for potential impeachment, as it could suggest a motive for Jane's testimony.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Glassman |
A person from whom testimony is being sought, and who the judge will permit to be asked a specific question regarding...
|
|
| Jane | Witness |
A witness whose testimony could be contradicted by Mr. Glassman's testimony. She has a civil case against Epstein's e...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of 'Epstein's estate', against which 'Jane' has a civil case.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
A person against whom 'Jane' has a civil case. The testimony in the current case is against her.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting agency.
|
| the government | government agency |
A party in the case, likely the prosecution, to whom Mr. Glassman may have spoken.
|
| the defense | legal team |
A party in the case seeking to elicit information from attorneys.
|
| the jury | legal body |
The body that would hear the testimony and could make an inference based on it.
|
| Epstein's estate | estate |
An entity against which 'Jane' has a civil case.
|
| victims' compensation fund | fund |
A fund to which 'Jane' has a claim, which could be helped by her testimony.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A judge rules to permit one specific question to be asked of Mr. Glassman regarding what he told the government about his communications with a witness named Jane.
Court
Relationships (3)
The document centers on a question about what Mr. Glassman told Jane regarding her legal case, suggesting a professional or advisory relationship.
Jane is testifying against Ms. Maxwell and also 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
— Judge (permitting the question)
(This is the specific question the judge is permitting the defense to ask Mr. Glassman to potentially impeach the testimony of another witness, Jane.)
DOJ-OGR-00016487.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,567 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 246 2299
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
that any of these witnesses will testify to relevant
nonprivileged information that is not outweighed by prejudice,
it's possible to get such testimony.
After careful consideration, with one exception, the
information the defense seeks to elicit from the three
attorneys, I conclude, is either not relevant under Rule 401,
is duplicative of information elicited on cross-examination
and, therefore, outweighed by prejudice, or is only potentially
marginally relevant to the limited inference of impeachment so
as to be outweighed by 403 prejudice.
The one question I intend to permit is the one I
suggested the parties stipulate to testimony from Mr. Glassman.
I will permit Mr. Glassman to be asked the following: 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?
The question does not elicit privileged information
directly because it seeks only to know what Mr. Glassman told
the government. Unlike the other proffers, this testimony is
relevant because Mr. Glassman's testimony, if the answer is
yes, could contradict Jane's testimony and allow an inference
to the jury that at least at one point she may have been under
the impression that testifying would help her civil case
against Ms. Maxwell and her claim to the fund. With this
nonprivileged information that is not outweighed by prejudice,
it's possible to get such testimony.
After careful consideration, with one exception, the
information the defense seeks to elicit from the three
attorneys, I conclude, is either not relevant under Rule 401,
is duplicative of information elicited on cross-examination
and, therefore, outweighed by prejudice, or is only potentially
marginally relevant to the limited inference of impeachment so
as to be outweighed by 403 prejudice.
The one question I intend to permit is the one I
suggested the parties stipulate to testimony from Mr. Glassman.
I will permit Mr. Glassman to be asked the following: 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?
The question does not elicit privileged information
directly because it seeks only to know what Mr. Glassman told
the government. Unlike the other proffers, this testimony is
relevant because Mr. Glassman's testimony, if the answer is
yes, could contradict Jane's testimony and allow an inference
to the jury that at least at one point she may have been under
the impression that testifying would help her civil case
against Ms. Maxwell and her claim to the fund. With this
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016487
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document