DOJ-OGR-00013876.jpg
600 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
600 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the admissibility of testimony. The parties discuss potential testimony from Mr. Grumbridge concerning the prior ownership of a property called Stanhope Mews. The court then addresses a government motion to exclude parts of Dr. Loftus's anticipated expert testimony on suggestive interview techniques.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Grumbridge | lawyer and solicitor |
Mentioned as having information about the Stanhope Mews ownership from a prior transaction where he was the lawyer an...
|
| ROHRBACH | Counsel |
A speaker in the transcript, likely representing the government, who discusses conferring with defense counsel about ...
|
| Dr. Loftus | Expert |
An individual whose anticipated expert testimony is being discussed. The government seeks to exclude parts of her tes...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case, seeking to exclude expert testimony and being the entity to which defense cou...
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
A property whose prior ownership is a subject of discussion, with Mr. Grumbridge having knowledge of it.
|
Relationships (2)
MR. ROHRBACH
→
professional
→
defense counsel
They are opposing counsel in a legal proceeding, discussing stipulations and production of records.
Mr. Grumbridge was the lawyer and solicitor involved in a prior ownership transaction of the Stanhope Mews property.
Key Quotes (4)
"Mr. Grumbridge would have about the Stanhope Mews ownership prior to this, because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved in that transaction as well, from my understanding."Source
— Unknown (likely defense counsel)
(Explaining why Mr. Grumbridge's testimony about the ownership of Stanhope Mews is relevant.)
DOJ-OGR-00013876.jpg
Quote #1
"I would just note that defense counsel has not produced any records to the government showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Stating that the defense has not provided documentation to support their claims about the property's ownership.)
DOJ-OGR-00013876.jpg
Quote #2
"Moving on to the Dr. Loftus testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus's anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her testimony on the use of leading questions by government investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a patient's experience."Source
— THE COURT
(Summarizing a motion from the government to limit the scope of an expert witness's testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00013876.jpg
Quote #3
"In an order dated November 21st, 2021, I ruled that"Source
— THE COURT
(Referencing a prior ruling relevant to the current discussion.)
DOJ-OGR-00013876.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,588 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 17 of 246
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 we would also like to include, which is information that
2 Mr. Grumbridge would have about the Stanhope Mews ownership
3 prior to this, because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved
4 in that transaction as well, from my understanding. So I think
5 it's -- to make the same point. But if we're going to lose his
6 testimony, because I think it's relevant testimony, I would
7 like to get in all parts of his testimony that I think are
8 relevant to this issue of ownership.
9 MR. ROHRBACH: We're happy to confer with defense
10 counsel and try to work something out. I would just note that
11 defense counsel has not produced any records to the government
12 showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews.
13 THE COURT: All right.
14 MR. ROHRBACH: We'll confer with the defense and try
15 to work out a stipulation.
16 THE COURT: Great. Thank you.
17 Okay. All right. Moving on to the Dr. Loftus
18 testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which
19 the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus's
20 anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her
21 testimony on the use of leading questions by government
22 investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist
23 technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a
24 patient's experience.
25 In an order dated November 21st, 2021, I ruled that
2 Mr. Grumbridge would have about the Stanhope Mews ownership
3 prior to this, because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved
4 in that transaction as well, from my understanding. So I think
5 it's -- to make the same point. But if we're going to lose his
6 testimony, because I think it's relevant testimony, I would
7 like to get in all parts of his testimony that I think are
8 relevant to this issue of ownership.
9 MR. ROHRBACH: We're happy to confer with defense
10 counsel and try to work something out. I would just note that
11 defense counsel has not produced any records to the government
12 showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews.
13 THE COURT: All right.
14 MR. ROHRBACH: We'll confer with the defense and try
15 to work out a stipulation.
16 THE COURT: Great. Thank you.
17 Okay. All right. Moving on to the Dr. Loftus
18 testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which
19 the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus's
20 anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her
21 testimony on the use of leading questions by government
22 investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist
23 technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a
24 patient's experience.
25 In an order dated November 21st, 2021, I ruled that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013876
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document