DOJ-OGR-00016750.jpg
620 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal ruling
File Size:
620 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a judge's ruling sustaining the government's objection to the introduction of prior inconsistent statements as extrinsic evidence without first giving the witness an opportunity to explain them. The ruling cites Federal Rule 613(a) and case precedents including United States v. Surdow and Miller's Federal Practice and Procedure.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Making a ruling on evidentiary objections (Likely Judge Alison J. Nathan based on case suffix AJN)
|
| Surdow | Case Citation Subject |
Referenced in United States v. Surdow regarding legal precedent
|
| Gulani | Case Citation Subject |
Referenced legal authority regarding trial court discretion
|
| Miller | Legal Author/Source |
Referenced regarding Federal Practice and Procedure Evidence
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Transcription service provider
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals referenced for legal precedent
|
|
| Seventh Circuit |
Court of Appeals referenced in citations
|
|
| Eleventh Circuit |
Court of Appeals referenced in citations
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp)
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution team whose objection was sustained
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court ruling sustaining the government's objection regarding the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements as extrinsic evidence.
Courtroom (Southern District)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court (likely SDNY based on reporters)
|
Relationships (1)
The Court sustained the government's objection against the opposing party's attempt to introduce extrinsic evidence.
Key Quotes (3)
"Therefore, the Court will sustain the government's objection as to all proposed prior inconsistent statements to which the witness was not presented with the statement to"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016750.jpg
Quote #1
"So the opportunity to explain the statement should consist of something more than just the opportunity to admit or deny making the statement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016750.jpg
Quote #2
"A trial court has discretion to require satisfaction of the latter requirement before the extrinsic evidence is offered or alternatively to permit it to be satisfied by recalling the witness after the extrinsic evidence is received."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016750.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,561 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 197 2562
LCFCmax1
LCFCmax1
1 repeatedly relied on rule 613(a), which uses different language
2 and is about impeachment by prior inconsistent statement on
3 cross examination, not introduction of a prior statement as
4 extrinsic evidence as it seeks to do here.
5 So the opportunity to explain the statement should
6 consist of something more than just the opportunity to admit or
7 deny making the statement. That's right in Miller, 28 Federal
8 Practice and Procedure Evidence, Section 6205, Note 1, Second
9 Edition 2021. Citing a Seventh Circuit case and an Eleventh
10 Circuit case.
11 Now I'm going to quote from Gulani again. A trial
12 court has discretion to require satisfaction of the latter
13 requirement before the extrinsic evidence is offered or
14 alternatively to permit it to be satisfied by recalling the
15 witness after the extrinsic evidence is received.
16 In a case called Surdow, S-u-r-d-o-w, the Second
17 Circuit stated that the district court has broad discretion to
18 exclude extrinsic impeachment evidence that was not revealed
19 while the witness was on the stand or at least before the
20 witness was permitted to leave the court. That's United States
21 v. Surdow, 121 F.Appx. 898 (2d Cir. 2005), collecting
22 authorities.
23 Therefore, the Court will sustain the government's
24 objection as to all proposed prior inconsistent statements to
25 which the witness was not presented with the statement to
2 and is about impeachment by prior inconsistent statement on
3 cross examination, not introduction of a prior statement as
4 extrinsic evidence as it seeks to do here.
5 So the opportunity to explain the statement should
6 consist of something more than just the opportunity to admit or
7 deny making the statement. That's right in Miller, 28 Federal
8 Practice and Procedure Evidence, Section 6205, Note 1, Second
9 Edition 2021. Citing a Seventh Circuit case and an Eleventh
10 Circuit case.
11 Now I'm going to quote from Gulani again. A trial
12 court has discretion to require satisfaction of the latter
13 requirement before the extrinsic evidence is offered or
14 alternatively to permit it to be satisfied by recalling the
15 witness after the extrinsic evidence is received.
16 In a case called Surdow, S-u-r-d-o-w, the Second
17 Circuit stated that the district court has broad discretion to
18 exclude extrinsic impeachment evidence that was not revealed
19 while the witness was on the stand or at least before the
20 witness was permitted to leave the court. That's United States
21 v. Surdow, 121 F.Appx. 898 (2d Cir. 2005), collecting
22 authorities.
23 Therefore, the Court will sustain the government's
24 objection as to all proposed prior inconsistent statements to
25 which the witness was not presented with the statement to
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016750
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document