DOJ-OGR-00013658.jpg
487 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
487 KB
Summary
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal discussion during the direct examination of witness A. Farmer. Attorney Ms. Menninger objects to a line of questioning involving the word 'rape', arguing it is beyond the scope of their challenge to the witness's memory. The judge overrules the objection, permitting the question on the grounds that it relates to a prior consistent statement and that the general credibility of witnesses has been attacked.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| A. Farmer | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the witness undergoing direct examination.
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney |
An attorney speaking to the judge ("your Honor"), making an argument about the scope of questioning a witness.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The presiding judge in the proceeding, who makes rulings on objections and clarifies points.
|
| MS. POMERANTZ | Attorney |
An attorney who responds to the court's statement about sealing the record.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument takes place during the direct examination of witness A. Farmer regarding the scope of questioning and the use of specific terminology. The judge overrules an objection from an attorney.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (2)
Ms. Menninger, an attorney, is presenting an argument and objection to the judge (The Court) during a legal proceeding.
Ms. Pomerantz, an attorney, responds directly to a statement made by the judge (The Court) regarding sealing the record.
Key Quotes (2)
"She's saying not raped. It's the opposite of raped. It's not raped."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's clarification to Ms. Menninger regarding the witness's testimony about rape.)
DOJ-OGR-00013658.jpg
Quote #1
"I'll allow the question as a prior -- I'm overruling the objection because it's an anticipated prior consistent statement in which the credibility of all of the witnesses as to what occurred has been attacked."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's legal reasoning for overruling Ms. Menninger's objection.)
DOJ-OGR-00013658.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,130 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 67 of 267 2095
LCAVMAX2
A. Farmer - direct
LCAVMAX2
A. Farmer - direct
1 this witness at all, and it's extremely far afield.
2 MS. MENNINGER: I can tell your Honor we're not
3 challenging the statements that she had a foot massage, a body
4 massage, and so forth. So there may be some of the details of
5 her memory that are off, but we did not put in to challenge
6 that she had those contacts. That's why we worded the limiting
7 instruction "the physical contact." And to use the word
8 "rape," when she's above the age of consent --
9 THE COURT: She's saying not raped. It's the opposite
10 of raped. It's not raped.
11 MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor --
12 THE COURT: I'll allow the question as a prior -- I'm
13 overruling the objection because it's an anticipated prior
14 consistent statement in which the credibility of all of the
15 witnesses as to what occurred has been attacked.
16 I don't think this needs to be sealed.
17 MS. POMERANTZ: No.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Not sealed.
19 (Continued on next page)
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 MS. MENNINGER: I can tell your Honor we're not
3 challenging the statements that she had a foot massage, a body
4 massage, and so forth. So there may be some of the details of
5 her memory that are off, but we did not put in to challenge
6 that she had those contacts. That's why we worded the limiting
7 instruction "the physical contact." And to use the word
8 "rape," when she's above the age of consent --
9 THE COURT: She's saying not raped. It's the opposite
10 of raped. It's not raped.
11 MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor --
12 THE COURT: I'll allow the question as a prior -- I'm
13 overruling the objection because it's an anticipated prior
14 consistent statement in which the credibility of all of the
15 witnesses as to what occurred has been attacked.
16 I don't think this needs to be sealed.
17 MS. POMERANTZ: No.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Not sealed.
19 (Continued on next page)
20
21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013658
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document