DOJ-OGR-00013595.jpg
583 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
583 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Moe regarding the procedural handling of an exhibit numbered '52'. The attorneys raise concerns about the exhibit's partial admission, relevance, and the jury's ability to evaluate its authenticity and weight without access to the full physical object.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, questioning the attorneys about the handling of exhibit 52.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney (implied) |
Speaker in the transcript, raising problems with the admission and scope of exhibit 52.
|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney (implied) |
Speaker in the transcript, expressing concern about how jurors can evaluate an exhibit whose authenticity is in dispu...
|
| My clerk | Clerk |
Mentioned by THE COURT as sending a portion of the transcript.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned by Mr. Pagliuca as having contended that only discrete portions of an exhibit were relevant.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion during a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) about the admissibility and handling of an exhibit referred to as '52'. The parties discuss whether the entire exhibit should be available to the jury, given that its authenticity has been disputed and only portions were deemed relevant by the government.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (2)
Dialogue in a court proceeding where THE COURT (a judge) is presiding and MR. PAGLIUCA (an attorney) is arguing a point about evidence.
Key Quotes (3)
"Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of 52?"Source
— THE COURT
(Questioning an attorney's position on the handling of exhibit 52.)
DOJ-OGR-00013595.jpg
Quote #1
"Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52, because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being admitted."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Explaining the basis for his objection to the handling of exhibit 52.)
DOJ-OGR-00013595.jpg
Quote #2
"I think the issue is more that because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would evaluate the testimony about its contents, the format, in order to evaluate its authenticity or weight without the object itself."Source
— MS. MOE
(Expressing concern about the jury's ability to properly assess the evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00013595.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,471 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 267 2031
LCACmax1
LCACmax1
1 issues. And that's how I understood this was being addressed.
2 THE COURT: Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for
3 the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of
4 52?
5 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there are a couple of problems.
6 Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52,
7 because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being
8 admitted. So I think that's problem number 1.
9 There are also problems, I think, simply with
10 relevance related to the rest of the exhibit, and there were
11 discrete portions that the government said the government was
12 contending were relevant and not the other portions. So the
13 book is however many pages it is, but I think it's outside of
14 what was appropriate for cross examination at the time.
15 THE COURT: My clerk is sending me the portion of the
16 transcript.
17 I can't tell if you're in disagreement yet or not,
18 Ms. Moe.
19 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think the issue is more
20 that because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has
21 now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would
22 evaluate the testimony about its contents, the format, in order
23 to evaluate its authenticity or weight without the object
24 itself. That's what we wanted to clarify about whether that
25 would be part of the record.
2 THE COURT: Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for
3 the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of
4 52?
5 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there are a couple of problems.
6 Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52,
7 because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being
8 admitted. So I think that's problem number 1.
9 There are also problems, I think, simply with
10 relevance related to the rest of the exhibit, and there were
11 discrete portions that the government said the government was
12 contending were relevant and not the other portions. So the
13 book is however many pages it is, but I think it's outside of
14 what was appropriate for cross examination at the time.
15 THE COURT: My clerk is sending me the portion of the
16 transcript.
17 I can't tell if you're in disagreement yet or not,
18 Ms. Moe.
19 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think the issue is more
20 that because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has
21 now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would
22 evaluate the testimony about its contents, the format, in order
23 to evaluate its authenticity or weight without the object
24 itself. That's what we wanted to clarify about whether that
25 would be part of the record.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013595
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document