DOJ-OGR-00018104.jpg
609 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
609 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the judge ('your Honor') about the admissibility of photographic evidence, specifically Government Exhibit 250. He describes the photo as depicting Jeffrey Epstein with a young, 'prepubescent' girl and contends it is irrelevant and prejudicial, similar to other photos that were already excluded.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Honor | Judge |
Referred to as 'your Honor' by the speaker. The judge who excluded evidence in motions in limine.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney (implied) |
The primary speaker in the transcript, addressing the court about the admissibility of evidence.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
Depicted in Government Exhibit 250 with a 'slightly older girl'.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Mentioned in the context of there being no allegations against her or Jeffrey Epstein related to the girl in the phot...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A hearing, likely regarding motions in limine, where the admissibility of photographic evidence (Government Exhibits 250, 251, 270) was discussed.
Courtroom (implied)
MR. EVERDELL
THE COURT
Relationships (1)
Mentioned together in the context of a lack of allegations regarding the girl in the photograph: 'There is no allegations that he or Ms. Maxwell...'
Key Quotes (2)
"That, as you can see, depicts Jeffrey Epstein with a slightly older girl."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Describing the content of Government Exhibit 250 to the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00018104.jpg
Quote #1
"I think, for similar reasons, this is not relevant and is prejudicial. It shows him with a prepubescent girl."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Arguing for the exclusion of Government Exhibit 250.)
DOJ-OGR-00018104.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,567 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 236 907
LBUCmax1
LBUCmax1
1 of pulling down her underwear exposing her buttocks. That was
2 excluded by your Honor on motions in limine. There is a
3 similar photo, it's the same photo. The one we excluded was
4 that photograph which was hanging on the wall, it was on the
5 floor, but Government Exhibit 270 was the same photograph on
6 the wall. There is consent to that one. Yes, we agreed that
7 that would not be offered. So 270 is not going to be offered.
8 There was one that we didn't reach agreement on, which
9 is Government Exhibit 250. In the motions in limine, your
10 Honor, you excluded Government Exhibit 251, which, if you
11 recall, was a photograph of a toddler, an infant walking
12 forward towards the camera with an adult in the back, naked,
13 and excluded it on 401 and 403 grounds.
14 There is another photo, which is Government Exhibit
15 250, which shows -- maybe we can pull that up if we can see it.
16 Is it on your screen, your Honor?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MR. EVERDELL: That, as you can see, depicts Jeffrey
19 Epstein with a slightly older girl. At this point, I believe
20 it is the same girl with her lying across his lap with her
21 bottom -- although with underwear on, but he's got his head
22 down close to the bottom.
23 I think, for similar reasons, this is not relevant and
24 is prejudicial. It shows him with a prepubescent girl. There
25 is no allegations that he or Ms. Maxwell, for that matter, were
2 excluded by your Honor on motions in limine. There is a
3 similar photo, it's the same photo. The one we excluded was
4 that photograph which was hanging on the wall, it was on the
5 floor, but Government Exhibit 270 was the same photograph on
6 the wall. There is consent to that one. Yes, we agreed that
7 that would not be offered. So 270 is not going to be offered.
8 There was one that we didn't reach agreement on, which
9 is Government Exhibit 250. In the motions in limine, your
10 Honor, you excluded Government Exhibit 251, which, if you
11 recall, was a photograph of a toddler, an infant walking
12 forward towards the camera with an adult in the back, naked,
13 and excluded it on 401 and 403 grounds.
14 There is another photo, which is Government Exhibit
15 250, which shows -- maybe we can pull that up if we can see it.
16 Is it on your screen, your Honor?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MR. EVERDELL: That, as you can see, depicts Jeffrey
19 Epstein with a slightly older girl. At this point, I believe
20 it is the same girl with her lying across his lap with her
21 bottom -- although with underwear on, but he's got his head
22 down close to the bottom.
23 I think, for similar reasons, this is not relevant and
24 is prejudicial. It shows him with a prepubescent girl. There
25 is no allegations that he or Ms. Maxwell, for that matter, were
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018104
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document