DOJ-OGR-00013227.jpg
513 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
513 KB
Summary
This court transcript page from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, attempts to introduce evidence (paragraphs 207 and 208) concerning Sarah Kellen, arguing it constitutes 'impeachment by omission' because Ms. Maxwell's name is absent. The Court sustains the objection, ruling the evidence inadmissible because, unlike previously discussed documents, it does not reference 'unnamed individual employees and assistants'.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the case, making rulings on objections.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
Arguing for the admission of evidence during a cross-examination.
|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the person being cross-examined.
|
| Sarah Kellen |
Mentioned as the subject of evidence (paragraphs 207 and 208) that Mr. Pagliuca is trying to offer.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Her name's absence from certain paragraphs is the basis for Mr. Pagliuca's argument for 'impeachment by omission'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument occurred between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court over the admissibility of evidence (paragraphs 207 and 208) during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn.
Courtroom
Relationships (2)
The transcript shows Mr. Pagliuca, an attorney, making legal arguments to the Court, which is acting in its capacity as a judge.
The document header states 'Carolyn - cross', indicating that Mr. Pagliuca is conducting a cross-examination of the witness, Carolyn.
Key Quotes (2)
"I view these as impeachment by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of these paragraphs."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Making an argument to the Court for why paragraphs 207 and 208 should be admitted as evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00013227.jpg
Quote #1
"So this is why this one is different than the last document, which is because of paragraph 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll sustain on 207."Source
— THE COURT
(Explaining the legal reasoning for sustaining the objection and not allowing the evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00013227.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,228 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 214 of 264 1655
LC7VMAX7
Carolyn - cross
LC7VMAX7
Carolyn - cross
1 THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.
2 I think if it said the last incident, then fine. But
3 otherwise you can ask the question. The paragraph itself is
4 not inconsistent.
5 What else?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I'm offering 207 and 208 with
7 regard to Sarah Kellen.
8 THE COURT: 207.
9 MR. PAGLIUCA: 207 and 208.
10 THE COURT: What's the inconsistency in 207?
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, these are -- well, as to all of
12 these, I'll just make this argument as to all of the paragraphs
13 that the Court sustained. I view these as impeachment by
14 omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of
15 these paragraphs.
16 THE COURT: Right. So this is why this one is
17 different than the last document, which is because of paragraph
18 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed
19 individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll
20 sustain on 207.
21 Is there something different in 208?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: No.
23 THE COURT: Okay. So sustained on that ground, too.
24 What else?
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: The interrogatory responses, your
2 I think if it said the last incident, then fine. But
3 otherwise you can ask the question. The paragraph itself is
4 not inconsistent.
5 What else?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I'm offering 207 and 208 with
7 regard to Sarah Kellen.
8 THE COURT: 207.
9 MR. PAGLIUCA: 207 and 208.
10 THE COURT: What's the inconsistency in 207?
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, these are -- well, as to all of
12 these, I'll just make this argument as to all of the paragraphs
13 that the Court sustained. I view these as impeachment by
14 omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of
15 these paragraphs.
16 THE COURT: Right. So this is why this one is
17 different than the last document, which is because of paragraph
18 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed
19 individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll
20 sustain on 207.
21 Is there something different in 208?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: No.
23 THE COURT: Okay. So sustained on that ground, too.
24 What else?
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: The interrogatory responses, your
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013227
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document