DOJ-OGR-00013359.jpg
645 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
645 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from a direct examination of a witness named Hesse. The transcript captures a legal discussion between an attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge (The Court) about the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically statements contained within business records like police reports. The core issue is that such statements are generally not admissible to prove their content is true unless a specific legal foundation, like business trustworthiness, is established.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Hesse | Witness/Subject of Testimony |
Mentioned in the header of the court transcript: "Hesse - direct".
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, providing a legal opinion on the admissibility of evidence.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, responding to the court's point about evidence.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A direct examination of a witness named Hesse, during which a legal discussion occurred between an attorney and the judge regarding the rules of evidence for hearsay.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (1)
Mr. Pagliuca and The Court are engaged in a formal legal dialogue within a court proceeding, discussing rules of evidence.
Key Quotes (3)
"Just because a police officer, in the ordinary course of a police officer's business being a police officer, takes a statement from someone doesn't make the statement itself admissible for the truth of the matter in the statement because there is no verification of the accuracy..."Source
— Unidentified Speaker (likely attorney)
(An argument being made to the court about why certain recorded statements should not be admitted as evidence for their truthfulness.)
DOJ-OGR-00013359.jpg
Quote #1
"I think in those cases, at the least, it comes in for the limited purpose that a statement was taken from so-and-so on a particular date and time."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's clarification on the conditions under which a hearsay statement within a record might be admissible.)
DOJ-OGR-00013359.jpg
Quote #2
"Sure. And so that's a limiting factor on the truth of the matter asserted in the statement."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Agreeing with the court's clarification on the limited admissibility of the evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00013359.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,669 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 81 of 262
LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct 1786
LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct 1786
1 transfer. Although there were certain pieces of information
2 that could be admitted, for example, someone saying a lengthy
3 dialogue that's recorded in one of these messages shouldn't be
4 admitted for the truth of the matter asserted because, first of
5 all, there is no business trustworthiness foundation for it.
6 Typically, when you're recording hearsay, in order for it to be
7 admissible, there needs to be some sort of business duty to
8 record and trustworthiness of the information.
9 This issue is similar. Issues that come up with
10 hospital records, for example, or police records, for example.
11 Just because a police officer, in the ordinary course of a
12 police officer's business being a police officer, takes a
13 statement from someone doesn't make the statement itself
14 admissible for the truth of the matter in the statement because
15 there is no verification of the accuracy and it just becomes
16 part of a record that, down the road, no one should be able to
17 say, here, I'm introducing this entire statement about what
18 happened for the truth of the matter asserted.
19 So, it is similar to that and I think it is --
20 THE COURT: I think in those cases, at the least, it
21 comes in for the limited purpose that a statement was taken
22 from so-and-so on a particular date and time.
23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. And so that's a limiting factor
24 on the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. In my
25 experience, typically, the hearsay portions of those kinds of
2 that could be admitted, for example, someone saying a lengthy
3 dialogue that's recorded in one of these messages shouldn't be
4 admitted for the truth of the matter asserted because, first of
5 all, there is no business trustworthiness foundation for it.
6 Typically, when you're recording hearsay, in order for it to be
7 admissible, there needs to be some sort of business duty to
8 record and trustworthiness of the information.
9 This issue is similar. Issues that come up with
10 hospital records, for example, or police records, for example.
11 Just because a police officer, in the ordinary course of a
12 police officer's business being a police officer, takes a
13 statement from someone doesn't make the statement itself
14 admissible for the truth of the matter in the statement because
15 there is no verification of the accuracy and it just becomes
16 part of a record that, down the road, no one should be able to
17 say, here, I'm introducing this entire statement about what
18 happened for the truth of the matter asserted.
19 So, it is similar to that and I think it is --
20 THE COURT: I think in those cases, at the least, it
21 comes in for the limited purpose that a statement was taken
22 from so-and-so on a particular date and time.
23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. And so that's a limiting factor
24 on the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. In my
25 experience, typically, the hearsay portions of those kinds of
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013359
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document