DOJ-OGR-00018943.jpg
645 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
645 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the court and Mr. Pagliuca. The conversation centers on the rules of evidence, specifically the inadmissibility of hearsay statements within records like police or hospital reports for proving the truth of the matter asserted, unless a specific exception like a business duty to ensure accuracy applies.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Hesse | Subject of direct examination |
Mentioned in the header: "Hesse - direct"
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, providing a legal opinion on the admissibility of evidence.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, responding to the court's statement.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Identified at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion in court regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically statements contained within business records like police or hospital reports.
Courtroom
Relationships (1)
The document records a formal dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MR. PAGLIUCA) about legal rules of evidence during a court proceeding.
Key Quotes (2)
"I think in those cases, at the least, it comes in for the limited purpose that a statement was taken from so-and-so on a particular date and time."Source
— THE COURT
(The court explaining the limited basis on which a statement within a record might be admitted as evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00018943.jpg
Quote #1
"Sure. And so that's a limiting factor on the truth of the matter asserted in the statement."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Agreeing with the court's assessment of the limited admissibility of hearsay statements.)
DOJ-OGR-00018943.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,669 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 81 of 262 1786
LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct
LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct
1 transfer. Although there were certain pieces of information
2 that could be admitted, for example, someone saying a lengthy
3 dialogue that's recorded in one of these messages shouldn't be
4 admitted for the truth of the matter asserted because, first of
5 all, there is no business trustworthiness foundation for it.
6 Typically, when you're recording hearsay, in order for it to be
7 admissible, there needs to be some sort of business duty to
8 record and trustworthiness of the information.
9 This issue is similar. Issues that come up with
10 hospital records, for example, or police records, for example.
11 Just because a police officer, in the ordinary course of a
12 police officer's business being a police officer, takes a
13 statement from someone doesn't make the statement itself
14 admissible for the truth of the matter in the statement because
15 there is no verification of the accuracy and it just becomes
16 part of a record that, down the road, no one should be able to
17 say, here, I'm introducing this entire statement about what
18 happened for the truth of the matter asserted.
19 So, it is similar to that and I think it is --
20 THE COURT: I think in those cases, at the least, it
21 comes in for the limited purpose that a statement was taken
22 from so-and-so on a particular date and time.
23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. And so that's a limiting factor
24 on the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. In my
25 experience, typically, the hearsay portions of those kinds of
2 that could be admitted, for example, someone saying a lengthy
3 dialogue that's recorded in one of these messages shouldn't be
4 admitted for the truth of the matter asserted because, first of
5 all, there is no business trustworthiness foundation for it.
6 Typically, when you're recording hearsay, in order for it to be
7 admissible, there needs to be some sort of business duty to
8 record and trustworthiness of the information.
9 This issue is similar. Issues that come up with
10 hospital records, for example, or police records, for example.
11 Just because a police officer, in the ordinary course of a
12 police officer's business being a police officer, takes a
13 statement from someone doesn't make the statement itself
14 admissible for the truth of the matter in the statement because
15 there is no verification of the accuracy and it just becomes
16 part of a record that, down the road, no one should be able to
17 say, here, I'm introducing this entire statement about what
18 happened for the truth of the matter asserted.
19 So, it is similar to that and I think it is --
20 THE COURT: I think in those cases, at the least, it
21 comes in for the limited purpose that a statement was taken
22 from so-and-so on a particular date and time.
23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. And so that's a limiting factor
24 on the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. In my
25 experience, typically, the hearsay portions of those kinds of
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018943
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document