DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
591 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
591 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They are discussing a complex legal issue regarding an amended rule and a Second Circuit decision on the admissibility of civil litigation settlements in a criminal case. The judge expresses doubt that the rule amendment overrules the binding Second Circuit precedent and asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to research the issue.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, addressing the Court on behalf of the government.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by MS. MOE, speaker identified as THE COURT.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a cross-examination ("Jane - cross").
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | government agency |
A speaker in the transcript, representing the judicial body presiding over the case.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
A federal court whose cases and decisions are being discussed.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding, listed at the bottom of the page.
|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of its legal position and its desire to introduce civil settlement matters.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Relationships (2)
MS. MOE, an attorney, is addressing the judge ('Your Honor') in a formal court setting.
The Court asks for the 'government's position' and MS. MOE responds, indicating she represents the government.
Key Quotes (4)
"I'd like to know the government's position on that."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge asking MS. MOE for the government's stance on a complicated legal issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
Quote #1
"That case is in the context of the defense seeking to introduce civil litigation settlement."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge explaining the context of a specific legal case being discussed.)
DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
Quote #2
"The rule is amended because the government wanted some ability to introduce in some context civil settlement matters."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge explaining the reason behind a change in a legal rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
Quote #3
"But I don't think that amendment is sufficiently overruling of the Second Circuit decision for me not to be bound by that Second Circuit decision."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge expressing an opinion on the legal weight of an amended rule versus a prior court decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,504 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 264 488
LC1VMAX3
Jane - cross
LC1VMAX3
Jane - cross
1 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I'm not -- I take the Court at
2 its word. I'm not familiar --
3 THE COURT: I mean, that's what it says. I'll admit
4 there may be some complications, but I'd like to know the
5 government's position on that.
6 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. We'd be happy to take a
7 quick look into it.
8 THE COURT: It will probably take more than a quick
9 look. It's complicated. That case is in the context of the
10 defense seeking to introduce civil litigation settlement. Is
11 defense aware of this case? Anybody have knowledge? No.
12 Who reads Second Circuit cases?
13 In the context of the defense seeking to introduce,
14 the rule was subsequently amended, there's been no intervening
15 Second Circuit interpretation. The rule is amended because the
16 government wanted some ability to introduce in some context
17 civil settlement matters. So the rule has been changed now, by
18 its terms, at least, not in the case of motive and bias, it
19 does appear to apply in criminal settings. But I don't think
20 that the amendment, which was not -- I don't think that
21 amendment is sufficiently overruling of the Second Circuit
22 decision for me not to be bound by that Second Circuit
23 decision. But you'll, I'm sure, take a look at that issue.
24 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
25 And just to widen the aperture of the issue, what
2 its word. I'm not familiar --
3 THE COURT: I mean, that's what it says. I'll admit
4 there may be some complications, but I'd like to know the
5 government's position on that.
6 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. We'd be happy to take a
7 quick look into it.
8 THE COURT: It will probably take more than a quick
9 look. It's complicated. That case is in the context of the
10 defense seeking to introduce civil litigation settlement. Is
11 defense aware of this case? Anybody have knowledge? No.
12 Who reads Second Circuit cases?
13 In the context of the defense seeking to introduce,
14 the rule was subsequently amended, there's been no intervening
15 Second Circuit interpretation. The rule is amended because the
16 government wanted some ability to introduce in some context
17 civil settlement matters. So the rule has been changed now, by
18 its terms, at least, not in the case of motive and bias, it
19 does appear to apply in criminal settings. But I don't think
20 that the amendment, which was not -- I don't think that
21 amendment is sufficiently overruling of the Second Circuit
22 decision for me not to be bound by that Second Circuit
23 decision. But you'll, I'm sure, take a look at that issue.
24 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
25 And just to widen the aperture of the issue, what
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017691
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document