DOJ-OGR-00018944.jpg
613 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
613 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe, over the admissibility of certain records. Mr. Pagliuca argues the records are unreliable and lack the necessary details to qualify for the business record exception. Ms. Moe counters that the records are being offered for the limited purpose of showing the dates and times of calls, and their trustworthiness is supported by the testimony of two other witnesses.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Hesse |
Mentioned in the header, likely a witness undergoing direct examination ("Hesse - direct").
|
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the legal proceeding, asks a question to Mr. Pagliuca.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
Arguing against the reliability and admissibility of certain records.
|
| Ms. Menninger |
Mentioned by Mr. Pagliuca as someone who made a good point, suggesting she is an associate or colleague.
|
|
| JE Natasha |
Mentioned as an example of an entry in the records being discussed, which Mr. Pagliuca finds lacking in detail.
|
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Arguing for the admissibility of the records, stating their purpose and citing corroborating witness testimony.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of records under the business record exception. One side argued the records lack reliability, while the other argued they are offered for a specific purpose and are corroborated by witness testimony.
Courtroom
Relationships (2)
They are presenting opposing arguments to the court, indicating they are adversarial counsel in a legal case.
Mr. Pagliuca refers to a point made by Ms. Menninger, suggesting they are colleagues or on the same legal team.
Key Quotes (3)
"Here, we don't have many instances, anything other than JE Natasha - this is the 2D that I'm looking at - and then a phone number with no date and no signature on it."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Arguing that the records lack sufficient detail and indicia of reliability to be admitted as evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00018944.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, I think the Court has it exactly right, that the issue here is whether they can be offered to show who was calling the house, the dates and times of those calls. That's the purpose for which these are being offered."Source
— MS. MOE
(Countering the argument against admissibility by clarifying the specific purpose for which the records are being introduced.)
DOJ-OGR-00018944.jpg
Quote #2
"With respect to other indicators of trustworthiness, now two witnesses have testified that a person with a first and last name appearing in these records, in fact, called the house and was there during this time period."Source
— MS. MOE
(Providing a reason for the records' trustworthiness by citing corroborating testimony from two witnesses.)
DOJ-OGR-00018944.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,556 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 262
LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct 1787
LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct 1787
1 records, which I think these are those kinds of records, are
2 redacted and you get -- there is a very limited range of
3 information on the record.
4 THE COURT: You were handed a note. Do you have
5 another point?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, and Ms. Menninger makes a good
7 point. Police officers, for example, or hospital folks
8 typically get identification when they're recording this
9 information, so they actually know who's speaking to them, and
10 that is some circumstantial trustworthiness at least of ID or
11 something like that. Here, we don't have many instances,
12 anything other than JE Natasha - this is the 2D that I'm
13 looking at - and then a phone number with no date and no
14 signature on it.
15 So there are many of these throughout that simply
16 don't have any indicia of reliability or satisfy even the
17 minimum requirements for the business record exception.
18 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court has it exactly
19 right, that the issue here is whether they can be offered to
20 show who was calling the house, the dates and times of those
21 calls. That's the purpose for which these are being offered.
22 With respect to other indicators of trustworthiness,
23 now two witnesses have testified that a person with a first and
24 last name appearing in these records, in fact, called the house
25 and was there during this time period. It would be exceedingly
2 redacted and you get -- there is a very limited range of
3 information on the record.
4 THE COURT: You were handed a note. Do you have
5 another point?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, and Ms. Menninger makes a good
7 point. Police officers, for example, or hospital folks
8 typically get identification when they're recording this
9 information, so they actually know who's speaking to them, and
10 that is some circumstantial trustworthiness at least of ID or
11 something like that. Here, we don't have many instances,
12 anything other than JE Natasha - this is the 2D that I'm
13 looking at - and then a phone number with no date and no
14 signature on it.
15 So there are many of these throughout that simply
16 don't have any indicia of reliability or satisfy even the
17 minimum requirements for the business record exception.
18 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court has it exactly
19 right, that the issue here is whether they can be offered to
20 show who was calling the house, the dates and times of those
21 calls. That's the purpose for which these are being offered.
22 With respect to other indicators of trustworthiness,
23 now two witnesses have testified that a person with a first and
24 last name appearing in these records, in fact, called the house
25 and was there during this time period. It would be exceedingly
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018944
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document