DOJ-OGR-00009405.jpg
429 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal transcript
File Size:
429 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Ms. Edelstein, is being questioned about a legal brief. The questioner suggests the brief creates a misleading impression about the timeline of when her side learned about an 'Appellate Division suspension report' relative to receiving a 'juror note' and a letter from Catherine Conrad. While Edelstein concedes the brief might convey that impression, she denies any intent to mislead.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein | Witness |
A witness, referred to as Ms. Edelstein, being questioned about the content of a legal brief.
|
| Dr. DeRosa |
Mentioned in a question to Ms. Edelstein about a past event where she allegedly raised her voice at him.
|
|
| Catherine Conrad |
The author of a letter mentioned in the questioning.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Appellate Division | Government agency (Judicial) |
An entity that issued a suspension report which is a subject of the questioning.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
An unidentified questioner is cross-examining a witness, Ms. Edelstein, about the contents of a legal brief.
Questioner
Ms. Edelstein
A past event where Ms. Edelstein allegedly stood at a podium and raised her voice at Dr. DeRosa for not answering her questions.
podium
Ms. Edelstein
Dr. DeRosa
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the place where Ms. Edelstein allegedly stood and raised her voice at Dr. DeRosa.
|
Relationships (2)
Questioner
→
Professional (Adversarial)
→
Ms. Edelstein
The questioner is cross-examining Ms. Edelstein, pressing her for 'Yes or no' answers and challenging the truthfulness of impressions created by her legal brief.
The questioner alleges a past incident where Ms. Edelstein 'stood at this podium and raised your voice with Dr. DeRosa about him not answering your questions'.
Key Quotes (2)
"I can see now that that might be the impression."Source
— Edelstein
(Responding to whether her brief conveyed that she learned of a report only after receiving a letter.)
DOJ-OGR-00009405.jpg
Quote #1
"That certainly was not our intention at the time. I certainly did not, we did not intend to create a misleading impression."Source
— Edelstein
(Denying that there was an intent to mislead in the brief she helped prepare.)
DOJ-OGR-00009405.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,441 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 116 of 130
A-5801
A-5801
C2GFDAU3
344
Edelstein
1 Q. In the brief, is it fair to say that the facts section
2 conveys the notion that you discovered or you commenced your
3 discovery and attained your knowledge of the Appellate Division
4 suspension report only after you received the letter of
5 Catherine Conrad? Yes or no?
6 A. I can see now that that might be the impression.
7 Q. Ms. Edelstein, I asked you a simple question. Weren't you
8 the one who stood at this podium and raised your voice with Dr.
9 DeRosa about him not answering your questions? Do you remember
10 that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay, can you answer my questions the way I asked them or
13 in response to my question? Would you do that, please?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that the facts as laid out in
16 your brief convey the notion that you learned of the Appellate
17 Division report only after you received the juror note; true or
18 false?
19 A. I find that a difficult answer, question to answer true or
20 false. I can see now how that might be the impression that is
21 conveyed by the brief.
22 Q. And that --
23 A. That certainly was not our intention at the time. I
24 certainly did not, we did not intend to create a misleading
25 impression. Our focus at the time was trying to show that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
344
Edelstein
1 Q. In the brief, is it fair to say that the facts section
2 conveys the notion that you discovered or you commenced your
3 discovery and attained your knowledge of the Appellate Division
4 suspension report only after you received the letter of
5 Catherine Conrad? Yes or no?
6 A. I can see now that that might be the impression.
7 Q. Ms. Edelstein, I asked you a simple question. Weren't you
8 the one who stood at this podium and raised your voice with Dr.
9 DeRosa about him not answering your questions? Do you remember
10 that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay, can you answer my questions the way I asked them or
13 in response to my question? Would you do that, please?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that the facts as laid out in
16 your brief convey the notion that you learned of the Appellate
17 Division report only after you received the juror note; true or
18 false?
19 A. I find that a difficult answer, question to answer true or
20 false. I can see now how that might be the impression that is
21 conveyed by the brief.
22 Q. And that --
23 A. That certainly was not our intention at the time. I
24 certainly did not, we did not intend to create a misleading
25 impression. Our focus at the time was trying to show that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009405
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document