DOJ-OGR-00017290.jpg
576 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
576 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The central issue is whether a limiting instruction should be given to the jury regarding the testimony of a witness named Annie, and how her testimony relates to specific counts (One, Two, Three, and Four) in an indictment. The parties disagree on the necessity and scope of such an instruction, with the judge ultimately asserting that the answer to the underlying question is 'yes'.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney |
Speaking to the court regarding a limiting instruction for the jury.
|
| Ms. Comey | Attorney |
Speaking to the court, arguing her position on a limiting instruction concerning Annie's testimony.
|
| Annie | Witness |
A person whose testimony is the subject of a discussion about limiting instructions for the jury.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the legal proceedings and interacting with Mr. Everdell and Ms. Comey.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place regarding the necessity and content of a limiting instruction for the jury concerning the testimony of a witness named Annie.
Courtroom in the Southern District
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Relationships (3)
The document shows a professional disagreement between the judge and an attorney, with the judge stating, "You took a different view. I have ruled differently."
Ms. Comey addresses the judge as "Your Honor" and presents a legal argument, indicating a standard attorney-judge relationship in a courtroom setting.
They are both presenting opposing or differing legal arguments to the court regarding the same issue, suggesting they are opposing counsel in a legal case.
Key Quotes (3)
"Clearly the substantive answer is yes."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's response to a question, seemingly disagreeing with Mr. Everdell's more complicated view.)
DOJ-OGR-00017290.jpg
Quote #1
"I think what we should do is give the jury the same limiting instruction as to her testimony that you gave before her testimony; because I think that actually gives the jury exactly what they can consider and not consider her testimony for."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Arguing for a specific limiting instruction to be given to the jury regarding Annie's testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00017290.jpg
Quote #2
"Your Honor, the limiting instruction was targeted at Counts Two and Four, the substantive counts, to make clear that Annie's testimony was not the basis of a substantive count."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Explaining the purpose of a prior limiting instruction and arguing its applicability to specific counts in the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00017290.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,392 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 12 of 19
LCLVMAXT
LCLVMAXT
THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think --
THE COURT: Clearly the substantive answer is yes.
MR. EVERDELL: Well, I think, as we've discussed in the briefing and in the limiting instruction, the answer is a little more complicated than --
THE COURT: Well, your view is more complicated. You took a different view. I have ruled differently. And so I think based -- I think it's clear based on my rulings the answer to the question is yes.
MR. EVERDELL: I think what we should do is give the jury the same limiting instruction as to her testimony that you gave before her testimony; because I think that actually gives the jury exactly what they can consider and not consider her testimony for.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the limiting instruction was targeted at Counts Two and Four, the substantive counts, to make clear that Annie's testimony was not the basis of a substantive count. I don't think it's necessary for Counts One and Three. I think the answer is clearly yes, made all the more so by the fact that Annie's testimony or a part of it is referenced as an overt act in the indictment and the instructions. I think the simplest answer and the correct answer is yes.
MR. EVERDELL: I don't think it's correct at all that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017290
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document