DOJ-OGR-00008392.jpg
344 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
344 KB
Summary
This is the final page of a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 15, 2021. United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan affirms the court's duty to protect witnesses from harassing or inappropriate cross-examination, citing the legal precedent from *Smith v. Illinois*. The order was signed and dated in New York, New York.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| ALISON J. NATHAN | United States District Judge |
Signed the court order.
|
| Smith |
A party in the legal case *Smith v. Illinois* cited as precedent.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court | Judiciary |
The court issuing the order, as indicated by the judge's title.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-12-15
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where the document was dated and signed.
|
|
|
A party in the legal case *Smith v. Illinois* cited as precedent.
|
Key Quotes (1)
"from questions which go beyond the bounds of proper cross-examination merely to harass, annoy or humiliate him"Source
— The court in Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 133 (1968)
(Cited as legal precedent to emphasize the court's duty to protect a witness during cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00008392.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (688 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 548 Filed 12/15/21 Page 6 of 6
Defense may of course raise, and the Court will consider, objections that particular lines of
questioning into witnesses’ backgrounds or lives are irrelevant, cumulative, intended to harass,
or otherwise inappropriate. See, e.g., Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 133 (1968) (emphasizing
that even when anonymity is not warranted, the court has a duty to protect a witness “from
questions which go beyond the bounds of proper cross-examination merely to harass, annoy or
humiliate him”).
questioning into witnesses’ backgrounds or lives are irrelevant, cumulative, intended to harass,
or otherwise inappropriate. See, e.g., Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 133 (1968) (emphasizing
that even when anonymity is not warranted, the court has a duty to protect a witness “from
questions which go beyond the bounds of proper cross-examination merely to harass, annoy or
humiliate him”).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2021
New York, New York
New York, New York
[Signature]
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
6
DOJ-OGR-00008392
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document