DOJ-OGR-00018130.jpg
643 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
643 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An unnamed speaker, likely an attorney, is making an objection to the judge regarding the admission of photographs of a New York townhouse taken in 2019. The attorney argues the photos are irrelevant and should not be shown to the jury, as they do not accurately represent the property's condition during the conspiracy period of 1994-2004, citing testimony from witnesses Juan Alessi and Jane about renovations and only general descriptions of the interior.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juan Alessi | Witness |
Mentioned as having given testimony about frequent renovations to certain places.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned as the only witness who has testified about the interior of the New York townhouse, describing it generally.
|
| your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by the speaker who is making an objection during a court proceeding.
|
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 (4 events)
1994-2004
The document refers to a conspiracy that took place between 1994 and 2004, which is the relevant time period for the case.
A speaker objects to the admission of photographs taken in 2019 as evidence, arguing they are irrelevant because they don't represent the location's appearance during the conspiracy period.
Courtroom
Unnamed Speaker
your Honor
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
A property whose interior appearance is the subject of the legal objection. The speaker argues that 2019 photographs ...
|
Key Quotes (1)
"So my objection is, your Honor, I don't think, unless they have a witness who can say that these photographs taken in 2019 look like those rooms that I saw back in '94, '95, or 2002 or some time period that's actually in the conspiracy, and I don't think they do, then these are irrelevant and they shouldn't be admitted to the jury because there is no basis to believe that this is what the place looked like on the inside back 15 years before."Source
— Unnamed Speaker (likely an attorney)
(The core legal argument being made against the admission of photographic evidence due to a discrepancy in time.)
DOJ-OGR-00018130.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,676 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 29 of 236 933
LBUCmax1
LBUCmax1
1 from the relevant time period in this case. We've already had
2 a lot of testimony about how there were frequent renovations to
3 these places, we had testimony from Juan Alessi about that, and
4 so there is no reason to believe that the interior of this
5 townhouse looked the way it did in 2019, whether it looked the
6 same way in 1994 to 2004, which is the time period of the
7 conspiracy. In fact, quite the opposite. We have every reason
8 to believe that there were significant changes based on the
9 testimony.
10 So my objection is, your Honor, I don't think, unless
11 they have a witness who can say that these photographs taken in
12 2019 look like those rooms that I saw back in '94, '95, or 2002
13 or some time period that's actually in the conspiracy, and I
14 don't think they do, then these are irrelevant and they
15 shouldn't be admitted to the jury because there is no basis to
16 believe that this is what the place looked like on the inside
17 back 15 years before. I believe the only witness they have
18 testified so far, and maybe the only one they can offer, is
19 Jane, who testified very, very generally and very briefly about
20 how the New York townhouse looked on the inside. She said
21 something to the effect of, there was old wood, it was dark,
22 there were creepy animal pictures on the wall. That's all we
23 had. I think she said she may have slept on the eighth floor
24 in the guest room, but there certainly wasn't a room-by-room
25 description of what this place looked like. And my
2 a lot of testimony about how there were frequent renovations to
3 these places, we had testimony from Juan Alessi about that, and
4 so there is no reason to believe that the interior of this
5 townhouse looked the way it did in 2019, whether it looked the
6 same way in 1994 to 2004, which is the time period of the
7 conspiracy. In fact, quite the opposite. We have every reason
8 to believe that there were significant changes based on the
9 testimony.
10 So my objection is, your Honor, I don't think, unless
11 they have a witness who can say that these photographs taken in
12 2019 look like those rooms that I saw back in '94, '95, or 2002
13 or some time period that's actually in the conspiracy, and I
14 don't think they do, then these are irrelevant and they
15 shouldn't be admitted to the jury because there is no basis to
16 believe that this is what the place looked like on the inside
17 back 15 years before. I believe the only witness they have
18 testified so far, and maybe the only one they can offer, is
19 Jane, who testified very, very generally and very briefly about
20 how the New York townhouse looked on the inside. She said
21 something to the effect of, there was old wood, it was dark,
22 there were creepy animal pictures on the wall. That's all we
23 had. I think she said she may have slept on the eighth floor
24 in the guest room, but there certainly wasn't a room-by-room
25 description of what this place looked like. And my
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018130
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document