DOJ-OGR-00018812.jpg
513 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
513 KB
Summary
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to introduce paragraphs 207 and 208 regarding Sarah Kellen as impeachment evidence, but the Court sustains the objection. The judge rules the paragraphs inadmissible, distinguishing them from prior evidence because they do not mention Ms. Maxwell or other unnamed employees.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the legal proceeding, making rulings on objections.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
Arguing for the admission of evidence (paragraphs 207 and 208) for impeachment purposes.
|
| Sarah Kellen |
Mentioned as the subject of paragraphs 207 and 208, which Mr. Pagliuca is attempting to offer as evidence.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Mentioned by Mr. Pagliuca as being absent from certain paragraphs, which he argues constitutes impeachment by omission.
|
|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Identified in the header as the person undergoing cross-examination.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca attempted to introduce paragraphs 207 and 208 as evidence, but the Court sustained an objection, ruling them inadmissible.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (1)
The document records a formal legal interaction where Mr. Pagliuca, an attorney, presents an argument, and THE COURT, a judge, listens and delivers a ruling.
Key Quotes (2)
"I view these as impeachment by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of these paragraphs."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Arguing for the admissibility of paragraphs 207 and 208.)
DOJ-OGR-00018812.jpg
Quote #1
"So this is why this one is different than the last document, which is because of paragraph 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll sustain on 207."Source
— THE COURT
(Explaining the legal reasoning for sustaining the objection to the admission of paragraph 207.)
DOJ-OGR-00018812.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,253 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 214 of 264
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross
1655
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross
1655
1 THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.
2 I think if it said the last incident, then fine. But
3 otherwise you can ask the question. The paragraph itself is
4 not inconsistent.
5 What else?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I'm offering 207 and 208 with
7 regard to Sarah Kellen.
8 THE COURT: 207.
9 MR. PAGLIUCA: 207 and 208.
10 THE COURT: What's the inconsistency in 207?
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, these are -- well, as to all of
12 these, I'll just make this argument as to all of the paragraphs
13 that the Court sustained. I view these as impeachment by
14 omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of
15 these paragraphs.
16 THE COURT: Right. So this is why this one is
17 different than the last document, which is because of paragraph
18 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed
19 individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll
20 sustain on 207.
21 Is there something different in 208?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: No.
23 THE COURT: Okay. So sustained on that ground, too.
24 What else?
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: The interrogatory responses, your
2 I think if it said the last incident, then fine. But
3 otherwise you can ask the question. The paragraph itself is
4 not inconsistent.
5 What else?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I'm offering 207 and 208 with
7 regard to Sarah Kellen.
8 THE COURT: 207.
9 MR. PAGLIUCA: 207 and 208.
10 THE COURT: What's the inconsistency in 207?
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, these are -- well, as to all of
12 these, I'll just make this argument as to all of the paragraphs
13 that the Court sustained. I view these as impeachment by
14 omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of
15 these paragraphs.
16 THE COURT: Right. So this is why this one is
17 different than the last document, which is because of paragraph
18 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed
19 individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll
20 sustain on 207.
21 Is there something different in 208?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: No.
23 THE COURT: Okay. So sustained on that ground, too.
24 What else?
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: The interrogatory responses, your
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018812
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document