DOJ-OGR-00017823.jpg
564 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
564 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding. Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim are discussing leading questions and testimony, with the Court providing input and rulings.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe |
Appears as a speaker in the document
|
|
| Ms. Sternheim |
Appears as a speaker in the document
|
|
| Judge |
Addressed by Ms. Sternheim
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Appears at the bottom of the document
|
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,249 characters)
MS. MOE: If I ask him about that, I do expect he
would say, yes, other girls. And so I think unless it's a
leading question, I just want to front that in order to avoid
creating an issue there.
THE COURT: Yes. Well, lead, and that way I don't
have to strike the testimony as not a prior consistent
statement.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. If the Court authorizes us
to lead, I think we can navigate through this area.
THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, okay if she leads through
this portion?
MS. STERNHEIM: I have no problem with that, Judge,
but if the witness on his own sua sponte says girls, I will be
objecting to that. I cannot rely on what they are going to do
or not do in closing.
THE COURT: I agree with that. That's why I said --
MS. STERNHEIM: That's fine.
THE COURT: -- I will let Ms. Moe lead so I don't have
to strike that testimony. I think we are in agreement that if
he were to testify that she told her that there were girls, the
implication would be underage; that implication wouldn't be a
prior consistent statement, and so I wouldn't allow that
implication to stay with the jury.
MS. STERNHEIM: I understand, and I thank you for
that. But the other part would be there was no testimony on
would say, yes, other girls. And so I think unless it's a
leading question, I just want to front that in order to avoid
creating an issue there.
THE COURT: Yes. Well, lead, and that way I don't
have to strike the testimony as not a prior consistent
statement.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. If the Court authorizes us
to lead, I think we can navigate through this area.
THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, okay if she leads through
this portion?
MS. STERNHEIM: I have no problem with that, Judge,
but if the witness on his own sua sponte says girls, I will be
objecting to that. I cannot rely on what they are going to do
or not do in closing.
THE COURT: I agree with that. That's why I said --
MS. STERNHEIM: That's fine.
THE COURT: -- I will let Ms. Moe lead so I don't have
to strike that testimony. I think we are in agreement that if
he were to testify that she told her that there were girls, the
implication would be underage; that implication wouldn't be a
prior consistent statement, and so I wouldn't allow that
implication to stay with the jury.
MS. STERNHEIM: I understand, and I thank you for
that. But the other part would be there was no testimony on
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document