DOJ-OGR-00018585.jpg
643 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
643 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument by Ms. Menninger. She contends that certain photographs should be inadmissible as evidence because they are undated, lack a witness for authentication, and there is no proof they haven't been altered, thus failing to meet the legal standard for admissibility.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Meder |
Mentioned in the header as 'Meder - direct', suggesting they are a witness undergoing direct examination.
|
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, addressing 'Your Honor' and making a legal argument about the admissibility of photographs.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by Ms. Menninger, presiding over the court case.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument regarding the admissibility of undated and unauthenticated photographs as evidence in a criminal case.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting company, 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.'
|
Relationships (1)
Ms. Menninger, likely an attorney, is formally addressing 'Your Honor', the judge, in a court proceeding.
Key Quotes (2)
"Your Honor, in many criminal cases, there are lots of context over what photographs are admissible and for what purpose."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Beginning her argument to the judge about the rules of evidence for photographs.)
DOJ-OGR-00018585.jpg
Quote #1
"Just showing photographs that are undated, they may be from 1975 for all I know, and showed the two of them together and there is no one to say that it hasn't been altered in the meantime, even the low bar of showing that the photograph is a photograph and without a witness to say it is what it purported to be, I don't think that that is true with respect to what is admissible for a photograph."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Arguing that without a witness to provide context, date, and authenticity, the photographs should not be admissible.)
DOJ-OGR-00018585.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,648 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 248 of 261 1409
LC6Cmax7 Meder - direct
LC6Cmax7 Meder - direct
1 emails or took the photographs or were in the photographs could
2 testify and identify themselves, no such evidence would ever be
3 offered in court. But of course that's not what happens. All
4 we do is we offer law enforcement agents who seized these items
5 and can authenticate them, and if defense wants to make
6 arguments to their relevance or otherwise, that goes to their
7 weight and not their admissibility, and those arguments are for
8 the jury.
9 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in many criminal cases,
10 there are lots of context over what photographs are admissible
11 and for what purpose. For example, if it was a photograph that
12 was taken inside of a store when there was a robbery that
13 purported to take place in the store, there would be a witness
14 to say that this photograph was taken in or near the events and
15 that we have reason to believe that nothing inside the store
16 has changed. Just showing photographs that are undated, they
17 may be from 1975 for all I know, and showed the two of them
18 together and there is no one to say that it hasn't been altered
19 in the meantime, even the low bar of showing that the
20 photograph is a photograph and without a witness to say it is
21 what it purported to be, I don't think that that is true with
22 respect to what is admissible for a photograph. It's a low
23 bar, but there is not even a single person that can say that
24 this photograph or the ones behind it are what they purport to
25 be.
2 testify and identify themselves, no such evidence would ever be
3 offered in court. But of course that's not what happens. All
4 we do is we offer law enforcement agents who seized these items
5 and can authenticate them, and if defense wants to make
6 arguments to their relevance or otherwise, that goes to their
7 weight and not their admissibility, and those arguments are for
8 the jury.
9 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in many criminal cases,
10 there are lots of context over what photographs are admissible
11 and for what purpose. For example, if it was a photograph that
12 was taken inside of a store when there was a robbery that
13 purported to take place in the store, there would be a witness
14 to say that this photograph was taken in or near the events and
15 that we have reason to believe that nothing inside the store
16 has changed. Just showing photographs that are undated, they
17 may be from 1975 for all I know, and showed the two of them
18 together and there is no one to say that it hasn't been altered
19 in the meantime, even the low bar of showing that the
20 photograph is a photograph and without a witness to say it is
21 what it purported to be, I don't think that that is true with
22 respect to what is admissible for a photograph. It's a low
23 bar, but there is not even a single person that can say that
24 this photograph or the ones behind it are what they purport to
25 be.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018585
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document