DOJ-OGR-00016498.jpg
593 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
593 KB
Summary
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between the court and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach. The conversation covers the scheduling of a witness for testimony and the legal relevance of that testimony, which concerns who resided at a home before 1997. Mr. Rohrbach, representing the government, argues that this evidence has only "marginal impeachment value" against the defendant's prior deposition testimony regarding their move to the 44 Kinnerton Street home.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Counsel |
Speaking to the court about a witness's availability for testimony.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the legal proceeding and questioning counsel on the relevance of testimony.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Counsel |
Responding to the court's question about the government's view on the relevance of certain facts.
|
| Kate |
Mentioned as someone who "identified a nearby, but incorrect," residence.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporters.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between the court and counsel regarding witness scheduling and the relevance of testimony.
Courtroom (implied)
An unnamed witness has a court appearance scheduled for an upcoming Monday.
unspecified court
unnamed witness
An unnamed witness is scheduled to get on a plane on an upcoming Monday night.
unspecified
unnamed witness
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a home the defendant moved to.
|
Relationships (3)
Mr. Everdell addresses the court as "Your Honor" and presents arguments, which is typical of an attorney-judge interaction.
The Court directly addresses Mr. Rohrbach, who responds with the government's legal position.
They are both counsel in the same case, with Mr. Rohrbach responding to a "proffer we have from the defense," indicating they are opposing counsel.
Key Quotes (3)
"Your Honor, I'm told he has a court appearance on Monday, and he's only going to be able to get on a plane Monday night and would only be available to testify Tuesday."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Explaining a witness's scheduling constraints to the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00016498.jpg
Quote #1
"what is the government's view as to the relevance of facts regarding who lived in the home prior to 1997?"Source
— THE COURT
(Questioning counsel on the legal relevance of potential testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00016498.jpg
Quote #2
"So who lived in the home might have marginal impeachment value, but the government's view is that it's only marginal."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Stating the government's position on the limited value of the proposed testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00016498.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,492 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 15 of 246 2310
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 Thursday or Friday. So if you give me a moment on that, I can
2 check on the status of that.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 (Counsel conferred)
5 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm told he has a court
6 appearance on Monday, and he's only going to be able to get on
7 a plane Monday night and would only be available to testify
8 Tuesday. We can consider a stipulation to his testimony too,
9 but I think these are all relevant and we should be able to
10 admit these to the jury to argue the inference.
11 THE COURT: I think the point of cross is whether he
12 has knowledge of whether -- of who lived at the residence
13 prior.
14 Mr. Rohrbach, the complication of ownership aside,
15 what is the government's view as to the relevance of facts
16 regarding who lived in the home prior to 1997?
17 MR. ROHRBACH: So who lived in the home might have
18 marginal impeachment value, but the government's view is that
19 it's only marginal. The proffer we have from the defense now
20 is that, at most, the defendant lived in a home nearby before
21 she moved to the 44 Kinnerton Street home. So to the extent
22 that that's true -- and again, it's contradicted by the
23 defendant's under-oath deposition testimony -- it would have
24 only marginal impeachment value. It would mean that, if true,
25 it would mean that Kate identified a nearby, but incorrect,
2 check on the status of that.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 (Counsel conferred)
5 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm told he has a court
6 appearance on Monday, and he's only going to be able to get on
7 a plane Monday night and would only be available to testify
8 Tuesday. We can consider a stipulation to his testimony too,
9 but I think these are all relevant and we should be able to
10 admit these to the jury to argue the inference.
11 THE COURT: I think the point of cross is whether he
12 has knowledge of whether -- of who lived at the residence
13 prior.
14 Mr. Rohrbach, the complication of ownership aside,
15 what is the government's view as to the relevance of facts
16 regarding who lived in the home prior to 1997?
17 MR. ROHRBACH: So who lived in the home might have
18 marginal impeachment value, but the government's view is that
19 it's only marginal. The proffer we have from the defense now
20 is that, at most, the defendant lived in a home nearby before
21 she moved to the 44 Kinnerton Street home. So to the extent
22 that that's true -- and again, it's contradicted by the
23 defendant's under-oath deposition testimony -- it would have
24 only marginal impeachment value. It would mean that, if true,
25 it would mean that Kate identified a nearby, but incorrect,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016498
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document