DOJ-OGR-00014662.jpg
571 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
571 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. The conversation revolves around how to respond to a jury's request for a specific document that is not formally in evidence, while testimony about the document is. The attorneys and the judge debate the precise wording of the response to avoid confusing the jury or diminishing the value of the admitted testimony.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. COMEY | Speaker (likely an attorney) |
Speaking to the court about clarifying for the jury that a requested document is not in evidence.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Speaker (likely an attorney) |
Speaking to the court, arguing that telling the jury a document is not in evidence diminishes the testimony about tha...
|
| THE COURT | Speaker (Judge) |
Mediating a discussion between Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca about how to respond to a jury's request for a document.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place regarding a jury's request for a document (possibly '3505-5' or '35'). The discussion focused on the distinction between the document itself, which was not in evidence, and the testimony about the document, which was.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
Both are speakers in a court proceeding, likely opposing counsel, addressing 'THE COURT' and arguing different legal points regarding evidence.
Ms. Comey addresses 'THE COURT' as 'Your Honor', indicating she is an attorney arguing before a judge.
Mr. Pagliuca is engaged in a dialogue with 'THE COURT', indicating he is an attorney arguing a point of law before a judge.
Key Quotes (4)
"Your Honor, I think it's important to clarify for the jury that the particular document they requested is not in evidence; but that they may consider what they already have in the transcript and what they already have in the exhibits."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Proposing how to respond to the jury's request for a document.)
DOJ-OGR-00014662.jpg
Quote #1
"Because the testimony about the document is in evidence. I don't think I'm splitting hairs here. I think the evidence is what it is."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Arguing against stating the document is not in evidence, emphasizing that the testimony about it is evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00014662.jpg
Quote #2
"I think it diminishes the testimony by inferring that somehow it's not evidence before the jury."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Expressing concern about the potential impact on the jury's perception of the testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00014662.jpg
Quote #3
"How about then: You have all admitted exhibits, period. Because it's directly responsive to the question without assuming further questions."Source
— THE COURT
(Suggesting a simple, direct response to the jury's question.)
DOJ-OGR-00014662.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,740 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 19 3095
LCLVMAXT
LCLVMAXT
1 referred to. I think a more limited answer is something along
2 the lines of: You have the admitted evidence relating to
3 3505-5. Something like that.
4 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think it's important to
5 clarify for the jury that the particular document they
6 requested is not in evidence; but that they may consider what
7 they already have in the transcript and what they already have
8 in the exhibits.
9 THE COURT: That sounds pretty similar.
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Which is what I just said without
11 saying the document is not in evidence. Because the testimony
12 about the document is in evidence. I don't think I'm splitting
13 hairs here. I think the evidence is what it is.
14 THE COURT: How about then: You have all admitted
15 exhibits, period. Because it's directly responsive to the
16 question without assuming further questions.
17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think what we're struggling with is
18 the difference between the testimony and the specific document.
19 I think it diminishes the testimony by inferring that somehow
20 it's not evidence before the jury.
21 THE COURT: They are asking for the document, I
22 presume in part because they have the testimony in front of
23 them.
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. Which I'm happy to give them
25 the 35 --
2 the lines of: You have the admitted evidence relating to
3 3505-5. Something like that.
4 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think it's important to
5 clarify for the jury that the particular document they
6 requested is not in evidence; but that they may consider what
7 they already have in the transcript and what they already have
8 in the exhibits.
9 THE COURT: That sounds pretty similar.
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Which is what I just said without
11 saying the document is not in evidence. Because the testimony
12 about the document is in evidence. I don't think I'm splitting
13 hairs here. I think the evidence is what it is.
14 THE COURT: How about then: You have all admitted
15 exhibits, period. Because it's directly responsive to the
16 question without assuming further questions.
17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think what we're struggling with is
18 the difference between the testimony and the specific document.
19 I think it diminishes the testimony by inferring that somehow
20 it's not evidence before the jury.
21 THE COURT: They are asking for the document, I
22 presume in part because they have the testimony in front of
23 them.
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. Which I'm happy to give them
25 the 35 --
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014662
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document