DOJ-OGR-00016770.jpg
636 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
636 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues to a judge that the government failed to properly investigate information provided by witnesses, which is probative of the defendant's innocence. The attorney cites the 'Watson case' as precedent where law enforcement prematurely concluded guilt and then begins to question a witness about conversations with a person named 'Jane' regarding 'group sexualized massages'.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by the speaker in court.
|
| Watson |
Mentioned as the name of a legal case ('the Watson case').
|
|
| Jane | Witness or informant |
A person who was spoken to on multiple dates and provided information about "group sexualized massages" and other ind...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned as the court that made a statement in a previous case regarding a probative tip.
|
| law enforcement | government agency |
Mentioned as having received a tip and prematurely concluding the defendant was the shooter in a past case.
|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned as having credited witnesses without following up on the information they provided.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A shooting of a victim by an individual other than the defendant in a past case.
victim
another individual
Cross-examination of the lead investigating officer regarding a tip.
Second Circuit
lead investigating officer
Relationships (2)
Unknown speaker (attorney)
→
professional
→
defendant
The speaker is arguing on behalf of the defendant's innocence, suggesting a lawyer-client relationship.
The government is prosecuting the defendant, and the speaker accuses the government of not properly investigating information that could prove the defendant's innocence.
Key Quotes (1)
"You spoke to Jane on X date. And on that date she told you about group sexualized massages involving this person and that person; isn't that right?"Source
— Unknown (likely an attorney)
(The speaker is recounting or beginning a line of questioning for a witness on the stand.)
DOJ-OGR-00016770.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,622 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 41 of 197 2582
LCHVMAX2
LCHVMAX2
1 circumstances.
2 In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that
3 the defendant was innocent because another individual shot the
4 victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of
5 the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative
6 because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had
7 prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it
8 failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was
9 the other individual. That was the Watson case.
10 I think we want to make these points, your Honor,
11 because I think the point to the jury is the government
12 credited the witnesses, the accusers in this case, without
13 following up on the information that they provided to see if it
14 was wrong. Not following up on that information is probative
15 of the defendant's guilt or innocence in this case; because had
16 they followed up, we believe they would have heard that that
17 was not true from these witnesses. And so that goes to the
18 guilt or innocence of this defendant.
19 I do intend to get into that on the stand and talk to
20 them about, You spoke to Jane on X date. And on that date she
21 told you about group sexualized massages involving this person
22 and that person; isn't that right? Yes. Spoke to her on
23 another date; she mentioned a few other names. Spoke to her on
24 a third date; she mentioned names again, and she gave physical
25 descriptions of these people. She said certain details about
2 In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that
3 the defendant was innocent because another individual shot the
4 victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of
5 the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative
6 because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had
7 prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it
8 failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was
9 the other individual. That was the Watson case.
10 I think we want to make these points, your Honor,
11 because I think the point to the jury is the government
12 credited the witnesses, the accusers in this case, without
13 following up on the information that they provided to see if it
14 was wrong. Not following up on that information is probative
15 of the defendant's guilt or innocence in this case; because had
16 they followed up, we believe they would have heard that that
17 was not true from these witnesses. And so that goes to the
18 guilt or innocence of this defendant.
19 I do intend to get into that on the stand and talk to
20 them about, You spoke to Jane on X date. And on that date she
21 told you about group sexualized massages involving this person
22 and that person; isn't that right? Yes. Spoke to her on
23 another date; she mentioned a few other names. Spoke to her on
24 a third date; she mentioned names again, and she gave physical
25 descriptions of these people. She said certain details about
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016770
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document