DOJ-OGR-00016224.jpg
612 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
612 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion about evidence. The prosecution seeks to introduce rebuttal evidence to clarify that a person named 'Jane' listed in a pilot's (Mr. Rodgers) log from flights in the 1990s is not the same 'Jane' the defense has been referring to. The judge ('THE COURT') overrules an objection from Mr. Pagliuca and allows the evidence, stating it is relevant to counter the defense's suggestions to pilot witnesses.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney (implied) |
Speaking to the Court regarding the timing of a witness and rebuttal testimony.
|
| Jane | Subject of testimony |
A person whose identity is being debated in relation to flights in the 1990s and a pilot's log.
|
| Mr. Rodgers | Pilot (implied) |
Mentioned as one of the 'pilot witnesses' whose log lists a person with the first name Jane.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Making a ruling on the admissibility of rebuttal evidence.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (2 events)
1990s
Flights occurred which are the subject of testimony, involving a person with the first name Jane, as recorded in Mr. Rodgers' log.
Not specified
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place regarding the admission of rebuttal evidence to clarify the identity of a person named Jane in relation to flights from the 1990s.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (2)
MR. PAGLIUCA addresses THE COURT formally as 'Your Honor' within a legal proceeding.
A person with the first name Jane is listed in Mr. Rodgers' log, who is referred to as a 'pilot witness'.
Key Quotes (2)
"Your Honor, if the Court is going to allow it on rebuttal, it makes sense to do it now. I don't see why we would need to delay the witness."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Arguing to the judge about the timing of rebuttal testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00016224.jpg
Quote #1
"I'll allow it. It is rebuttal. The relevance is that the defense has suggested that, with both pilot witnesses, that the person they either remember to have the first name -- same first name as Jane or listed on Mr. Rodgers' log as having the same first name as Jane wasn't, in fact, Jane."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's ruling to allow the rebuttal evidence and explaining the reason for its relevance.)
DOJ-OGR-00016224.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,584 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 267 2035
LCACmax1
LCACmax1
1 about a photograph of this defendant -- of this person which is
2 the same as the photograph the defense has already offered and
3 connecting that up with her date of birth, which is information
4 that is not a mystery to the defense, they've been in
5 possession of that information for a long time now through
6 discovery. So we're both on equal footing. We promptly
7 complied with our discovery obligations. There is no surprise
8 in the substance of this testimony or the exhibit.
9 So we would like to correct the record before the jury
10 now because there is no basis to suggest to this jury that the
11 person in the 1990s flights is Jane. That is misleading and we
12 would like to clarify that today.
13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, if the Court is going to
14 allow it on rebuttal, it makes sense to do it now. I don't see
15 why we would need to delay the witness. So if the Court is
16 going to allow it, I would just --
17 THE COURT: I'll allow it. It is rebuttal. The
18 relevance is that the defense has suggested that, with both
19 pilot witnesses, that the person they either remember to have
20 the first name -- same first name as Jane or listed on
21 Mr. Rodgers' log as having the same first name as Jane wasn't,
22 in fact, Jane.
23 I understand the government's proffer to be that they
24 have evidence that shows this other person who has the same
25 first name as Jane would not have been -- whose age and also
2 the same as the photograph the defense has already offered and
3 connecting that up with her date of birth, which is information
4 that is not a mystery to the defense, they've been in
5 possession of that information for a long time now through
6 discovery. So we're both on equal footing. We promptly
7 complied with our discovery obligations. There is no surprise
8 in the substance of this testimony or the exhibit.
9 So we would like to correct the record before the jury
10 now because there is no basis to suggest to this jury that the
11 person in the 1990s flights is Jane. That is misleading and we
12 would like to clarify that today.
13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, if the Court is going to
14 allow it on rebuttal, it makes sense to do it now. I don't see
15 why we would need to delay the witness. So if the Court is
16 going to allow it, I would just --
17 THE COURT: I'll allow it. It is rebuttal. The
18 relevance is that the defense has suggested that, with both
19 pilot witnesses, that the person they either remember to have
20 the first name -- same first name as Jane or listed on
21 Mr. Rodgers' log as having the same first name as Jane wasn't,
22 in fact, Jane.
23 I understand the government's proffer to be that they
24 have evidence that shows this other person who has the same
25 first name as Jane would not have been -- whose age and also
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016224
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document