DOJ-OGR-00017589.jpg
551 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
551 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe, and the presiding judge. The attorneys debate a proposed question for a witness, Jane, regarding her potential financial stake in the case's outcome. The judge overrules the objection, deciding to allow the question but with a limiting instruction to the jury to ensure they understand the witness is testifying to her own understanding, not providing legal instruction.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney |
Speaking to the court regarding testimony and sentencing.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the case, making rulings on objections and providing instructions to the attorneys.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Speaking to the court, flagging a future question for a witness regarding their financial stake in the case.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a direct examination ("Jane - direct").
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion, possibly a sidebar, during the direct examination of a witness named Jane. The attorneys and judge discuss the phrasing and admissibility of a question about the witness's financial stake in the case.
Courtroom in the Southern District
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied location of the court, as the court reporters are named "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Relationships (3)
They are on opposing sides in a court case, discussing objections and lines of questioning before the judge.
Ms. Menninger is an attorney arguing a point before the judge, whom she addresses as 'your Honor'.
Key Quotes (3)
"I'll give a limiting instruction that -- after she testifies, that the jury should understand she's not providing legal instruction, but testifying as to her understanding in response to the question."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's ruling on how to handle a potentially problematic line of questioning.)
DOJ-OGR-00017589.jpg
Quote #1
"Just to avoid a second sidebar, I just wanted to flag, after asking this question, I expect the next question I would ask would be just simply, Do you have a financial stake in the outcome of this case?"Source
— MS. MOE
(An attorney preemptively informing the court of her intended line of questioning for a witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00017589.jpg
Quote #2
"Oh, there's no doubt."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's response when Ms. Moe states her intended question is what the defense suggested in their opening.)
DOJ-OGR-00017589.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,360 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 227 of 247 359
LBUVMAX6
Jane - direct
1 lie.
2 MS. MENNINGER: In cooperating situations, your Honor,
3 the sentence happens after the testimony.
4 THE COURT: Well, they are not the same, but I think
5 the point is the same.
6 I'll give a limiting instruction that -- after she
7 testifies, that the jury should understand she's not providing
8 legal instruction, but testifying as to her understanding in
9 response to the question. And so with that -- and you'll say
10 the question again, make sure it's phrased from her
11 understanding. With that, I'll overrule.
12 I don't see any reason this should be sealed.
13 MS. MOE: No, your Honor.
14 MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor.
15 MS. MOE: Just to avoid a second sidebar, I just
16 wanted to flag, after asking this question, I expect the next
17 question I would ask would be just simply, Do you have a
18 financial stake in the outcome of this case? Again, that's
19 about her understanding, whether she believes she has a
20 financial -- which is exactly what the defense suggested in
21 their opening.
22 THE COURT: Oh, there's no doubt.
23 MS. MOE: I just want to flag that.
24 THE COURT: You have an objection to that question?
25 MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. But I think she does
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017589
LBUVMAX6
Jane - direct
1 lie.
2 MS. MENNINGER: In cooperating situations, your Honor,
3 the sentence happens after the testimony.
4 THE COURT: Well, they are not the same, but I think
5 the point is the same.
6 I'll give a limiting instruction that -- after she
7 testifies, that the jury should understand she's not providing
8 legal instruction, but testifying as to her understanding in
9 response to the question. And so with that -- and you'll say
10 the question again, make sure it's phrased from her
11 understanding. With that, I'll overrule.
12 I don't see any reason this should be sealed.
13 MS. MOE: No, your Honor.
14 MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor.
15 MS. MOE: Just to avoid a second sidebar, I just
16 wanted to flag, after asking this question, I expect the next
17 question I would ask would be just simply, Do you have a
18 financial stake in the outcome of this case? Again, that's
19 about her understanding, whether she believes she has a
20 financial -- which is exactly what the defense suggested in
21 their opening.
22 THE COURT: Oh, there's no doubt.
23 MS. MOE: I just want to flag that.
24 THE COURT: You have an objection to that question?
25 MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. But I think she does
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017589
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document