DOJ-OGR-00016688.jpg
565 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
565 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (US v. Maxwell) detailing a sidebar discussion while the jury is not present. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz debate the admissibility of 'Exhibit MA1,' which contains victim travel records spanning 15 years (up to 2010). The prosecution objects to records outside the charged indictment period citing relevance and victim privacy, while the defense argues the 2010 cutoff was previously negotiated with the government.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the discussion regarding exhibit admissibility.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing for the relevance of travel records extending to 2010.
|
| Ms. Pomerantz | Prosecutor (Government) |
Objecting to the relevance and privacy concerns of victim travel records outside the charged indictment period.
|
| Aznaran | Witness (Reference) |
Name appears in header 'Aznaran - direct', likely referring to witness Shawnna Aznaran.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Footer info.
|
|
| The Government |
Referred to by Mr. Everdell regarding subpoena negotiations.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Unknown (Trial Date)
Court Sidebar/Discussion without Jury
Courtroom (Southern District of NY implied)
Relationships (1)
Arguing regarding the objection to Exhibit MA1.
Key Quotes (2)
"we're talking about victim travel records that go over 15 years of victim travel records that extend well beyond the period charged in the indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016688.jpg
Quote #1
"records go up to 2010, which was the cutoff point for the request when we issued the subpoena"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016688.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,383 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 205 of 246 2500
LCGCmax6 Aznaran - direct
LCGCmax6 Aznaran - direct
1 (Jury not present)
2 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Everdell.
3 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the exhibit is marked for
4 identification as MA1, and I'll hand up a paper copy to the
5 Court, and I believe the government has a copy, but I have
6 another one for them, as well.
7 THE COURT: Okay. I'll hear the objection.
8 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. Just briefly,
9 the question posed to the defense is what is the relevance of
10 these records, and in particular, we're talking about victim
11 travel records that go over 15 years of victim travel records
12 that extend well beyond the period charged in the indictment.
13 And so, we would ask for a proffer of relevance for the
14 admissibility of such extensive travel information, private
15 information of the victims.
16 THE COURT: So no objection within the charged
17 timeframe?
18 MS. POMERANTZ: No objection.
19 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, for example, these records
20 go up to 2010, which was the cutoff point for the request when
21 we issued the subpoena, we, in fact, negotiated with the
22 government over how broad the subpoena would be and we agreed
23 that it would go to 2010.
24 Now, as to the relevance -- and that's why the records
25 go that far.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Everdell.
3 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the exhibit is marked for
4 identification as MA1, and I'll hand up a paper copy to the
5 Court, and I believe the government has a copy, but I have
6 another one for them, as well.
7 THE COURT: Okay. I'll hear the objection.
8 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. Just briefly,
9 the question posed to the defense is what is the relevance of
10 these records, and in particular, we're talking about victim
11 travel records that go over 15 years of victim travel records
12 that extend well beyond the period charged in the indictment.
13 And so, we would ask for a proffer of relevance for the
14 admissibility of such extensive travel information, private
15 information of the victims.
16 THE COURT: So no objection within the charged
17 timeframe?
18 MS. POMERANTZ: No objection.
19 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, for example, these records
20 go up to 2010, which was the cutoff point for the request when
21 we issued the subpoena, we, in fact, negotiated with the
22 government over how broad the subpoena would be and we agreed
23 that it would go to 2010.
24 Now, as to the relevance -- and that's why the records
25 go that far.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016688
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016688
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document