DOJ-OGR-00016360.jpg
574 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
574 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Menninger. They are arguing over the relevance of an August 2019 email in which the witness, A. Farmer, recounts her memory of a 2007 meeting with the FBI. Ms. Menninger argues it tests the witness's memory regarding events in 1996, but the judge ultimately sustains an objection, ruling the evidence is 'two steps removed' and irrelevant.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| A. Farmer | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the person being cross-examined.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, presiding over the legal proceedings.
|
| MS. POMERANTZ | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, likely an attorney, arguing against a line of questioning.
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, likely an attorney, defending a line of questioning about a witness's memory.
|
| Unnamed New York Times reporter | Reporter |
The recipient of an email from the witness in August 2019.
|
| Unnamed husband | Husband of witness |
Mentioned as someone the witness spoke to in order to refresh her memory.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| New York Times | company |
Mentioned as the employer of a reporter who received an email from the witness.
|
| FBI | government agency |
Mentioned as the 'FBI agents' who met with the witness in 2007.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007
A meeting between the witness ('she') and FBI agents, which is the subject of her testimony and the email being discussed.
A. Farmer (implied 'she')
FBI agents
2022-08-10
A sidebar discussion in court regarding the admissibility of evidence to test a witness's memory.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the 'New York Times reporter'.
|
Relationships (2)
Both are attorneys arguing opposing sides of a legal point before the court during a trial.
The document states that the witness ('she') refreshed her memory by talking to 'her husband'.
Key Quotes (5)
"I think what I'm looking at is an email from August of 2019, in which she recounts to the New York Times reporter that she thinks when they came — meaning the FBI agents — it was in spring-summer of 2007."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge describing the piece of evidence being discussed at the sidebar.)
DOJ-OGR-00016360.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, this is a collateral matter. She's been testifying about the interview itself, but there is no grounds to bring in extrinsic evidence on this matter with the date of the interview itself."Source
— MS. POMERANTZ
(Arguing that the email about the date of the interview is irrelevant to the testimony about the interview's content.)
DOJ-OGR-00016360.jpg
Quote #2
"It's her memories now of things that she -- yes, about things that happened a decade ago, which, by inference, goes to the strength of her memory about things that happened in '96."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Justifying the line of questioning by connecting the witness's memory of a 2007 event to the strength of her memory about a 1996 event.)
DOJ-OGR-00016360.jpg
Quote #3
"So the theory is anything testing her memory from years ago is relevant."Source
— THE COURT
(Summarizing and questioning the logic of Ms. Menninger's argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00016360.jpg
Quote #4
"This is two steps removed and I'll sustain."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's final ruling on the matter, sustaining the objection.)
DOJ-OGR-00016360.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,426 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 144 of 267 2172
LCACmax5
A. Farmer - cross
LCACmax5
A. Farmer - cross
1 (At the sidebar)
2 THE COURT: I think what I'm looking at is an email
3 from August of 2019, in which she recounts to the New York
4 Times reporter that she thinks when they came — meaning the FBI
5 agents — it was in spring-summer of 2007. Grounds.
6 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this is a collateral
7 matter. She's been testifying about the interview itself, but
8 there is no grounds to bring in extrinsic evidence on this
9 matter with the date of the interview itself.
10 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, my point is simply that
11 she refreshed her memory about when the meeting was by talking
12 to her husband and thinking about other points, like it was hot
13 and sunny. She did testify that it was --
14 THE COURT: But what's in issue is her memory of when
15 she met with the FBI agents? What does that matter?
16 MS. MENNINGER: It's her memories now of things that
17 she -- yes, about things that happened a decade ago, which, by
18 inference, goes to the strength of her memory about things that
19 happened in '96.
20 THE COURT: So the theory is anything testing her
21 memory from years ago is relevant.
22 MS. MENNINGER: I wouldn't go that far, your Honor.
23 THE COURT: This is two steps removed and I'll
24 sustain.
25 (Continued on next page)
2 THE COURT: I think what I'm looking at is an email
3 from August of 2019, in which she recounts to the New York
4 Times reporter that she thinks when they came — meaning the FBI
5 agents — it was in spring-summer of 2007. Grounds.
6 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this is a collateral
7 matter. She's been testifying about the interview itself, but
8 there is no grounds to bring in extrinsic evidence on this
9 matter with the date of the interview itself.
10 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, my point is simply that
11 she refreshed her memory about when the meeting was by talking
12 to her husband and thinking about other points, like it was hot
13 and sunny. She did testify that it was --
14 THE COURT: But what's in issue is her memory of when
15 she met with the FBI agents? What does that matter?
16 MS. MENNINGER: It's her memories now of things that
17 she -- yes, about things that happened a decade ago, which, by
18 inference, goes to the strength of her memory about things that
19 happened in '96.
20 THE COURT: So the theory is anything testing her
21 memory from years ago is relevant.
22 MS. MENNINGER: I wouldn't go that far, your Honor.
23 THE COURT: This is two steps removed and I'll
24 sustain.
25 (Continued on next page)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016360
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document