DOJ-OGR-00016891.jpg
606 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
606 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Everdell argues against admitting evidence provided by the government, stating it is new information that his client, Ms. Maxwell, was not shown during her deposition. He suggests that any confusion in her testimony about her past addresses in London could be due to the vagueness of questioning and her having lived in many different places.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the case, questioning Mr. Everdell about the basis for not admitting testimony.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
Arguing on behalf of his client, Ms. Maxwell, against the admission of new evidence provided by the government.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Client/Subject of discussion |
Mentioned as the subject of a deposition and the person who lived at various addresses, including two in London. Mr. ...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the government | government agency |
The opposing party in the legal case, which provided new information (documents) that is being contested.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion in court between the judge and Mr. Everdell regarding the admissibility of testimony and evidence related to property records.
Courtroom
A past deposition of Ms. Maxwell during which she was questioned about addresses but was allegedly not shown the property records in question.
last week
The government provided new information/documents to Mr. Everdell's team.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a location where Ms. Maxwell had two different addresses, which could be a source of confusion in her de...
|
Relationships (3)
Mr. Everdell addresses the court as 'your Honor' and presents legal arguments, indicating an attorney-judge relationship.
Mr. Everdell is arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, referencing her deposition and personal history, which strongly implies he is her legal counsel.
The government is the opposing party to Mr. Everdell (representing Ms. Maxwell) in a legal proceeding, indicating a prosecutor-defendant or plaintiff-defendant relationship.
Key Quotes (3)
"Look, is there a basis for the government not to admit the testimony?"Source
— THE COURT
(Questioning the legal grounds for excluding certain testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00016891.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, the government, as we discussed, provided that last week to us. So it's new information for us that we had to respond to. She was never shown these documents."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Explaining the objection to the evidence, citing it as new information that his client did not have a chance to review during her deposition.)
DOJ-OGR-00016891.jpg
Quote #2
"And it's also possible that if you're being asked a vague question in a deposition and you had two different addresses in London, you may assume they're talking about one and not the other..."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Providing a hypothetical explanation for potential inaccuracies in Ms. Maxwell's deposition testimony regarding her past residences.)
DOJ-OGR-00016891.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,521 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 162 of 197
LCHCmax5
LCHCmax5
1
THE COURT: Look, is there a basis for the government
2
not to admit the testimony?
3
MR. EVERDELL: Well, I think, your Honor, it's -- one
4
moment, your Honor.
5
Your Honor, the government, as we discussed, provided
6
that last week to us. So it's new information for us that we
7
had to respond to. She was never shown these documents. And
8
it was during the deposition. I mean, she was never shown the
9
registry records of the property records. If you own houses
10
and there is already evidence --
11
THE COURT: I don't know.
12
MR. EVERDELL: I don't know either, your Honor, but I
13
imagine if you own several places over the years, as
14
Ms. Maxwell has, there is evidence in the record that she was
15
living in different places over different years, many different
16
places. You might not recall right off the top of your head
17
the exact years that you lived at some address unless you can
18
refresh your recollection. And it's also possible that if
19
you're being asked a vague question in a deposition and you had
20
two different addresses in London, you may assume they're
21
talking about one and not the other, and you may answer the
22
years you lived in the other address instead of the one we're
23
actually talking about today.
24
THE COURT: If we get a stip on the two addresses, the
25
two property records coming in and the depo coming in, then I
THE COURT: Look, is there a basis for the government
2
not to admit the testimony?
3
MR. EVERDELL: Well, I think, your Honor, it's -- one
4
moment, your Honor.
5
Your Honor, the government, as we discussed, provided
6
that last week to us. So it's new information for us that we
7
had to respond to. She was never shown these documents. And
8
it was during the deposition. I mean, she was never shown the
9
registry records of the property records. If you own houses
10
and there is already evidence --
11
THE COURT: I don't know.
12
MR. EVERDELL: I don't know either, your Honor, but I
13
imagine if you own several places over the years, as
14
Ms. Maxwell has, there is evidence in the record that she was
15
living in different places over different years, many different
16
places. You might not recall right off the top of your head
17
the exact years that you lived at some address unless you can
18
refresh your recollection. And it's also possible that if
19
you're being asked a vague question in a deposition and you had
20
two different addresses in London, you may assume they're
21
talking about one and not the other, and you may answer the
22
years you lived in the other address instead of the one we're
23
actually talking about today.
24
THE COURT: If we get a stip on the two addresses, the
25
two property records coming in and the depo coming in, then I
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016891
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document