DOJ-OGR-00008411.jpg
618 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
618 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 17, 2021, in which the judge is speaking. The judge outlines the rules for cross-examination, stating that the defense will be permitted to question law enforcement about the thoroughness of their investigation and to impeach government witnesses. The judge notes that denying these lines of questioning to the defense, represented by Ms. Maxwell, would have implications under the confrontation clause.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Party to the case |
Mentioned in the context of the Court's decision on lines of questioning for the defense, stating that denying her th...
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The speaker in the transcript, outlining the permissible scope of cross-examination for the defense.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-12-17
The Court outlines its ruling on the scope of cross-examination, permitting the defense to question law enforcement on investigative thoroughness and government witnesses for impeachment purposes.
Relationships (1)
The Court is making a ruling that directly impacts the legal strategy and rights of Ms. Maxwell's defense team during the trial, specifically concerning the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
Key Quotes (2)
"I also would permit the defense to cross-examine law enforcement officers about the investigative steps that were taken if the government puts the thoroughness of the investigation into issue as this, too, would be permissible impeachment and cross."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge is stating the conditions under which the defense is allowed to question law enforcement officers about their investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00008411.jpg
Quote #1
"Moreover, denying Ms. Maxwell these lines of questioning would have implications under the confrontation clause."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge provides the legal justification (the confrontation clause) for allowing the defense certain lines of questioning during cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00008411.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,528 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 17 of 24
LB15MAX2
29
1
THE COURT: (Continuing)
2
I imagine this can be done through cross-examination
3
questions if the witness has personal knowledge. I would also
4
encourage the parties to discuss stipulations in this regard to
5
provide the jury any necessary and non-prejudicial context or
6
background, or other proposals for permitting the jury to
7
understand the background or context without crossing over into
8
the 403 prejudice line.
9
I also would permit the defense to cross-examine law
10
enforcement officers about the investigative steps that were
11
taken if the government puts the thoroughness of the
12
investigation into issue as this, too, would be permissible
13
impeachment and cross.
14
These articulated lines of cross-examination of
15
government witnesses would be relevant to impeach a witness by
16
suggesting bias or otherwise implicating their credibility.
17
Moreover, denying Ms. Maxwell these lines of questioning would
18
have implications under the confrontation clause. The Court
19
expects that the probative value would not be substantially
20
outweighed by 403 prejudice if done along the lines of what I
21
have indicated, especially if accompanied by a limiting
22
instruction by the Court that, for example, prior inconsistent
23
statements are to be considered for their impeachment value and
24
the like.
25
Similarly, the Court may instruct the jury that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008411
LB15MAX2
29
1
THE COURT: (Continuing)
2
I imagine this can be done through cross-examination
3
questions if the witness has personal knowledge. I would also
4
encourage the parties to discuss stipulations in this regard to
5
provide the jury any necessary and non-prejudicial context or
6
background, or other proposals for permitting the jury to
7
understand the background or context without crossing over into
8
the 403 prejudice line.
9
I also would permit the defense to cross-examine law
10
enforcement officers about the investigative steps that were
11
taken if the government puts the thoroughness of the
12
investigation into issue as this, too, would be permissible
13
impeachment and cross.
14
These articulated lines of cross-examination of
15
government witnesses would be relevant to impeach a witness by
16
suggesting bias or otherwise implicating their credibility.
17
Moreover, denying Ms. Maxwell these lines of questioning would
18
have implications under the confrontation clause. The Court
19
expects that the probative value would not be substantially
20
outweighed by 403 prejudice if done along the lines of what I
21
have indicated, especially if accompanied by a limiting
22
instruction by the Court that, for example, prior inconsistent
23
statements are to be considered for their impeachment value and
24
the like.
25
Similarly, the Court may instruct the jury that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008411
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document