DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg
595 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
595 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated December 15, 2021, is an argument from Ms. Maxwell's counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. Counsel argues that because Jane denied the substance of a prior statement in court, they should be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, citing legal precedent. The document concludes by noting that due to time constraints, counsel was unable to meet a 10:15 p.m. deadline to list all such disputed statements.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | The Honorable |
The document is addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan.
|
| Jane | Witness |
A witness whose trial testimony and prior statements are the subject of the legal argument.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Client/Defendant |
The individual whose rights under Rule 613 are being argued for, and whose counsel authored the document.
|
| Jones |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Jones'.
|
|
| Weinstein |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'Weinstein’s Federal Evidence'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FBI | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of an agent making a typo in a statement.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-12-15
A deadline of 10:15 p.m. for Ms. Maxwell's counsel to indicate each disputed prior inconsistent statement that was read into the record.
Ms. Maxwell’s counsel
A trial in which a witness named Jane gave testimony regarding a prior statement.
Relationships (3)
The document states 'Ms. Maxwell’s counsel was not able to indicate each disputed prior inconsistent statement', indicating a client-attorney relationship.
Jane is a witness in a trial where Ms. Maxwell is a party. The document discusses impeaching Jane's testimony to protect Ms. Maxwell's rights.
The document is a legal argument from counsel addressed to a judge presiding over the case.
Key Quotes (3)
"I did not make the prior statement, or I don’t remember making the prior statement, the FBI agent made a typo"Source
— Jane
(Presented as the substance of Jane's trial testimony denying a prior statement.)
DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg
Quote #1
"The principle is that where it is sought to impeach a witness by showing a prior inconsistent statement and the witness admits the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is thereby impeached and further testimony is not necessary."Source
— United States v. Jones, 578 F.2d 1332, 1340 (10th Cir. 1978)
(A quote from a legal case cited to support the argument about extrinsic evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg
Quote #2
"admitted the statement"Source
— Rule 613
(A key legal phrase from Rule 613, the meaning of which is being debated in the document.)
DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,669 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 553 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 15, 2021
Page 2
December 15, 2021
Page 2
(Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 613.04[1] (2d ed. 2001)). To be sure, every time Jane denied
making a statement but agreed the 3500 material reflected the statement, she denied its substance
to the jury; the prior statement is therefore provable by extrinsic evidence because Jane’s trial
testimony—I did not make the prior statement, or I don’t remember making the prior statement,
the FBI agent made a typo—would lead to a relevant conclusion different from any other
relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said. See id. And referring Jane to the
3500 material, which was not admitted into evidence, is not sufficient to protect Ms. Maxwell’s
right under Rule 613 to prove the statement by extrinsic evidence.
making a statement but agreed the 3500 material reflected the statement, she denied its substance
to the jury; the prior statement is therefore provable by extrinsic evidence because Jane’s trial
testimony—I did not make the prior statement, or I don’t remember making the prior statement,
the FBI agent made a typo—would lead to a relevant conclusion different from any other
relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said. See id. And referring Jane to the
3500 material, which was not admitted into evidence, is not sufficient to protect Ms. Maxwell’s
right under Rule 613 to prove the statement by extrinsic evidence.
Extrinsic evidence is disallowed only when the witness admits making the prior
inconsistent statement. United States v. Jones, 578 F.2d 1332, 1340 (10th Cir. 1978) (“The
principle is that where it is sought to impeach a witness by showing a prior inconsistent
statement and the witness admits the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is thereby
impeached and further testimony is not necessary.”). Where the witness admits the 3500 material
contains the statement, but denies making the statement or remembering making the statement,
the witness has not “admitted the statement” within the meaning of Rule 613. Cf. id.
inconsistent statement. United States v. Jones, 578 F.2d 1332, 1340 (10th Cir. 1978) (“The
principle is that where it is sought to impeach a witness by showing a prior inconsistent
statement and the witness admits the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is thereby
impeached and further testimony is not necessary.”). Where the witness admits the 3500 material
contains the statement, but denies making the statement or remembering making the statement,
the witness has not “admitted the statement” within the meaning of Rule 613. Cf. id.
Due to the press of time, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel was not able to indicate each disputed
prior inconsistent statement that was read into the record by the deadline of 10:15 p.m.
prior inconsistent statement that was read into the record by the deadline of 10:15 p.m.
DOJ-OGR-00008426
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document