File not found.
DOJ-OGR-00017282.jpg
571 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
571 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge. The main topic is how to properly respond to a jury's request for a specific document that has not been admitted into evidence, although testimony about the document has been presented. The lawyers and judge debate the precise wording of the response to avoid confusing the jury or improperly influencing their view of the existing evidence.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. COMEY | Counsel |
Speaker in the transcript arguing to clarify for the jury that a requested document is not in evidence.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Counsel |
Speaker in the transcript discussing the distinction between testimony about a document and the document itself being...
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, mediating the discussion between counsel and proposing language for the jury.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place regarding how to respond to a jury's request for a document. The discussion centered on the fact that the document was not in evidence, but testimony about it was, and the parties debated the appropriate instruction to give the jury.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (3)
They are opposing counsel in a legal proceeding, debating a point of law before the judge.
Ms. Comey addresses the Court as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal argument for the judge's consideration.
Mr. Pagliuca responds to the Court's suggestions and explains his legal reasoning to the judge.
Key Quotes (4)
"Your Honor, I think it's important to clarify for the jury that the particular document they requested is not in evidence; but that they may consider what they already have in the transcript and what they already have in the exhibits."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Proposing how to respond to a jury's request for a document.)
DOJ-OGR-00017282.jpg
Quote #1
"Because the testimony about the document is in evidence. I don't think I'm splitting hairs here. I think the evidence is what it is."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Arguing against explicitly telling the jury a document is not in evidence, as it might diminish the testimony that is in evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00017282.jpg
Quote #2
"How about then: You have all admitted exhibits, period. Because it's directly responsive to the question without assuming further questions."Source
— THE COURT
(Suggesting a simple, direct response to the jury's question to avoid confusion.)
DOJ-OGR-00017282.jpg
Quote #3
"I think what we're struggling with is the difference between the testimony and the specific document. I think it diminishes the testimony by inferring that somehow it's not evidence before the jury."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Explaining his concern about telling the jury the document is not in evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00017282.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,404 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 19 3095
LCLVMAXT
LCLVMAXT
1 referred to. I think a more limited answer is something along
2 the lines of: You have the admitted evidence relating to
3 3505-5. Something like that.
4 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think it's important to
5 clarify for the jury that the particular document they
6 requested is not in evidence; but that they may consider what
7 they already have in the transcript and what they already have
8 in the exhibits.
9 THE COURT: That sounds pretty similar.
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Which is what I just said without
11 saying the document is not in evidence. Because the testimony
12 about the document is in evidence. I don't think I'm splitting
13 hairs here. I think the evidence is what it is.
14 THE COURT: How about then: You have all admitted
15 exhibits, period. Because it's directly responsive to the
16 question without assuming further questions.
17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think what we're struggling with is
18 the difference between the testimony and the specific document.
19 I think it diminishes the testimony by inferring that somehow
20 it's not evidence before the jury.
21 THE COURT: They are asking for the document, I
22 presume in part because they have the testimony in front of
23 them.
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. Which I'm happy to give them
25 the 35 --
2 the lines of: You have the admitted evidence relating to
3 3505-5. Something like that.
4 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think it's important to
5 clarify for the jury that the particular document they
6 requested is not in evidence; but that they may consider what
7 they already have in the transcript and what they already have
8 in the exhibits.
9 THE COURT: That sounds pretty similar.
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Which is what I just said without
11 saying the document is not in evidence. Because the testimony
12 about the document is in evidence. I don't think I'm splitting
13 hairs here. I think the evidence is what it is.
14 THE COURT: How about then: You have all admitted
15 exhibits, period. Because it's directly responsive to the
16 question without assuming further questions.
17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think what we're struggling with is
18 the difference between the testimony and the specific document.
19 I think it diminishes the testimony by inferring that somehow
20 it's not evidence before the jury.
21 THE COURT: They are asking for the document, I
22 presume in part because they have the testimony in front of
23 them.
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. Which I'm happy to give them
25 the 35 --
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017282
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document