DOJ-OGR-00011719.jpg
616 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
616 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between Ms. Sternheim and the Judge. Ms. Sternheim argues that lawyers who attended proffer sessions with the government can be considered witnesses, but the Judge denies this, stating that such an action would have required a specific briefing that was never submitted. The core issue is the admissibility of testimony from these lawyers during the trial.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Sternheim | Attorney (implied) |
Speaker in the transcript arguing a point to the judge.
|
| Judge | Judge |
Referred to by Ms. Sternheim and is the speaker identified as 'THE COURT'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in legal proceedings, receiving information during proffer sessions.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The court reporting agency that created the transcript.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion during a court hearing regarding the admissibility of testimony from lawyers who attended proffer sessions.
Courtroom (implied)
Ms. Sternheim
The Court
Past meetings where lawyers for certain people were present and communicated with the government.
Offices
lawyers
government representatives
unspecified people
Relationships (1)
Ms. Sternheim, an attorney, is addressing the Judge ('The Court') and arguing a legal point during a court proceeding.
Key Quotes (3)
"Judge, the government well knows that the lawyers for these people sat in their offices through proffer sessions. If nothing else, they are witnesses to what went on in that room."Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Arguing that lawyers who were present at proffer sessions should be considered witnesses.)
DOJ-OGR-00011719.jpg
Quote #1
"I had said clearly, since it's unclear, how you can call lawyers for witnesses in this case as witnesses themselves; that you wouldn't do so unless you briefed it specifically. You have not done that."Source
— THE COURT
(Reiterating a prior ruling that lawyers cannot be called as witnesses without a specific, prior briefing.)
DOJ-OGR-00011719.jpg
Quote #2
"But, Judge, may I just say there's no dispute that if a witness to a proffer has information that may be a conflict with the testimony here, there is no privilege to that."Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Making a final point about the lack of privilege for conflicting information from a witness to a proffer.)
DOJ-OGR-00011719.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,570 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 741 Filed 08/10/22 Page 54 of 106 58
LBTVMAX3 Opening - Ms. Sternheim
LBTVMAX3 Opening - Ms. Sternheim
1 certainly their attorneys couldn't be called as witnesses to
2 talk about that. Beyond that, I can't imagine a good-faith
3 basis to proffer that evidence to come before this jury about
4 that.
5 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the government well knows that
6 the lawyers for these people sat in their offices through
7 proffer sessions. If nothing else, they are witnesses to what
8 went on in that room. They also separately were in
9 communication with the government providing information to the
10 government; and the government, in turn, was helping them build
11 their cases, their civil cases, and their cases for settlement.
12 So there is a good-faith basis to raise these things.
13 THE COURT: I had said clearly, since it's unclear,
14 how you can call lawyers for witnesses in this case as
15 witnesses themselves; that you wouldn't do so unless you
16 briefed it specifically. You have not done that. So you may
17 not refer to that testimony that you somehow anticipate getting
18 in, although I don't know how you will in your opening. You
19 may not. I was very clear that before that would happen, you
20 would have to brief it. I haven't seen any briefing, so you
21 may not reference it.
22 MS. STERNHEIM: But, Judge, may I just say there's no
23 dispute that if a witness to a proffer has information that may
24 be a conflict with the testimony here, there is no privilege to
25 that.
2 talk about that. Beyond that, I can't imagine a good-faith
3 basis to proffer that evidence to come before this jury about
4 that.
5 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the government well knows that
6 the lawyers for these people sat in their offices through
7 proffer sessions. If nothing else, they are witnesses to what
8 went on in that room. They also separately were in
9 communication with the government providing information to the
10 government; and the government, in turn, was helping them build
11 their cases, their civil cases, and their cases for settlement.
12 So there is a good-faith basis to raise these things.
13 THE COURT: I had said clearly, since it's unclear,
14 how you can call lawyers for witnesses in this case as
15 witnesses themselves; that you wouldn't do so unless you
16 briefed it specifically. You have not done that. So you may
17 not refer to that testimony that you somehow anticipate getting
18 in, although I don't know how you will in your opening. You
19 may not. I was very clear that before that would happen, you
20 would have to brief it. I haven't seen any briefing, so you
21 may not reference it.
22 MS. STERNHEIM: But, Judge, may I just say there's no
23 dispute that if a witness to a proffer has information that may
24 be a conflict with the testimony here, there is no privilege to
25 that.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011719
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document