DOJ-OGR-00000642.jpg
604 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
604 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker critiques an article from the New York Law Journal. The speaker refutes the opinions of two professors who argued against holding a public hearing and allowing victims to speak in the Jeffrey Epstein case, calling their suggestions 'incredulous' and incorrect as a matter of law.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| two professors | professor |
Mentioned as authors of an article or commentary in the New York Law Journal regarding legal procedure and transparency.
|
| a prosecutor | prosecutor |
Mentioned in a hypothetical scenario described by the two professors, where a prosecutor seeks to dismiss an indictment.
|
| the judge | judge |
Mentioned in the context of the professors' opinion that a judge would not schedule a hearing or allow victims to speak.
|
| the victims | victim |
Mentioned in the context of whether they would be allowed to speak at a hearing.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
Mentioned as the subject of the case being discussed ("In the Jeffrey Epstein case").
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| New York Law Journal | publication |
The source of an article or commentary from two professors that the speaker is discussing.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The Jeffrey Epstein case is the context for the discussion about legal procedure and transparency.
A hypothetical hearing is discussed, with opinions on whether it should be held and whether victims should be allowed to speak.
Key Quotes (1)
"this is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case."Source
— two professors
(A quote from an article in the New York Law Journal, relayed by the speaker in the transcript.)
DOJ-OGR-00000642.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,545 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 53 Filed 09/03/19 Page 4 of 86
J8RsEPS1
J8RsEPS1
1 relatively straightforward. In my view, a public hearing
2 clearly is nevertheless the preferred vehicle for its
3 resolution.
4 Incidentally, while I'm on this subject, I got some
5 help today from the New York Law Journal from two professors
6 who write that a hearing is -- let me tell you exactly what
7 they said. They say, in part, that this is an odd moment for
8 transparency in a criminal case. I think that is an odd
9 sentence to hear about, transparency in a criminal case.
10 They go on to say that normally, if a prosecutor seeks
11 to dismiss an indictment for such an obviously worthy reason,
12 the court would simply grant the request. As to that
13 statement, I respectfully say it is incorrect as a matter of
14 law.
15 They go on to say the judge would not schedule a
16 hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak.
17 If he did hold a hearing, whatever informational interests the
18 victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to
19 attend the hearing, not by giving them a speaking role.
20 I read it. It was incredulous. I'm still
21 incredulous. I don't quite understand at all. There is a
22 suggestion in the article that the reason they are making these
23 suggestions has to do with minimization of drama in this case.
24 In the Jeffrey Epstein case, there has not been much a
25 minimization of drama, and what little drama might happen
2 clearly is nevertheless the preferred vehicle for its
3 resolution.
4 Incidentally, while I'm on this subject, I got some
5 help today from the New York Law Journal from two professors
6 who write that a hearing is -- let me tell you exactly what
7 they said. They say, in part, that this is an odd moment for
8 transparency in a criminal case. I think that is an odd
9 sentence to hear about, transparency in a criminal case.
10 They go on to say that normally, if a prosecutor seeks
11 to dismiss an indictment for such an obviously worthy reason,
12 the court would simply grant the request. As to that
13 statement, I respectfully say it is incorrect as a matter of
14 law.
15 They go on to say the judge would not schedule a
16 hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak.
17 If he did hold a hearing, whatever informational interests the
18 victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to
19 attend the hearing, not by giving them a speaking role.
20 I read it. It was incredulous. I'm still
21 incredulous. I don't quite understand at all. There is a
22 suggestion in the article that the reason they are making these
23 suggestions has to do with minimization of drama in this case.
24 In the Jeffrey Epstein case, there has not been much a
25 minimization of drama, and what little drama might happen
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000642
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document