DOJ-OGR-00018466.jpg
533 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
533 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Pomerantz, and Ms. Sternheim about the admissibility of email evidence. The judge rules that the dates of the emails can be presented to the jury, but the content and subject matter must be redacted, and information identifying a witness must be sealed.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the case, making rulings on the admissibility of evidence.
|
| MS. POMERANTZ | Attorney |
Attorney involved in the case, questioning the court about the redaction of emails.
|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Attorney |
Attorney involved in the case, discussing the details of email evidence and hearsay rules with the court.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion in court regarding the admission of email evidence. The judge rules that the dates of emails can be shown to the jury, but the content and subject matter must be redacted, and the sender/recipient information must be sealed to protect a witness's identity.
Courtroom (unspecified)
Relationships (3)
Ms. Pomerantz addresses the court as 'your Honor' and seeks clarification on a ruling, indicating a standard judge-attorney interaction in a legal proceeding.
Ms. Sternheim responds to the court's questions and makes legal arguments, indicating a standard judge-attorney interaction in a legal proceeding.
Both are attorneys participating in the same court proceeding, discussing evidence with the judge, suggesting they are opposing counsel or otherwise involved in the same case.
Key Quotes (3)
"Well, I would permit it as cumulative if all we're doing is showing the jury that emails happened on these dates."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's initial ruling on allowing email evidence for the limited purpose of showing when they were sent.)
DOJ-OGR-00018466.jpg
Quote #1
"So with the content and the subject matter redacted, I'll let the dates in. And who's emailing it would have to be sealed because it identifies the witness by her true identity."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's final decision on how the email evidence should be presented, specifying redactions and sealing to protect a witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00018466.jpg
Quote #2
"If it is not being offered for the truth, why can't it come in with a limiting instruction?"Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(An attorney arguing for the admission of evidence with a limiting instruction to the jury, likely to bypass hearsay objections.)
DOJ-OGR-00018466.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,316 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 129 of 261 1290
LC6VMAX4
LC6VMAX4
1 THE COURT: Well, I would permit it as cumulative if
2 all we're doing is showing the jury that emails happened on
3 these dates.
4 MS. POMERANTZ: I just want to make sure I understand,
5 your Honor. Would all of the substance of the emails be
6 redacted?
7 THE COURT: That's the proposition.
8 MS. POMERANTZ: And what about the subject lines?
9 MS. STERNHEIM: The subject lines would not be --
10 well, the sender and recipient would not be hearsay. The date
11 would not be hearsay.
12 THE COURT: Right. But the subject line would be.
13 Okay. So with the content and the subject matter
14 redacted, I'll let the dates in. And who's emailing it would
15 have to be sealed because it identifies the witness by her true
16 identity.
17 MS. POMERANTZ: Okay, your Honor. Thank you.
18 THE COURT: Okay. So, Ms. Sternheim, your team will
19 prepare a redacted -- I'm sorry, I lost the number, K -- what
20 was the defendant's mark?
21 MS. STERNHEIM: K-8.
22 And if I may just supplement the record for a moment.
23 THE COURT: Sure.
24 MS. STERNHEIM: If it is not being offered for the
25 truth, why can't it come in with a limiting instruction? Other
2 all we're doing is showing the jury that emails happened on
3 these dates.
4 MS. POMERANTZ: I just want to make sure I understand,
5 your Honor. Would all of the substance of the emails be
6 redacted?
7 THE COURT: That's the proposition.
8 MS. POMERANTZ: And what about the subject lines?
9 MS. STERNHEIM: The subject lines would not be --
10 well, the sender and recipient would not be hearsay. The date
11 would not be hearsay.
12 THE COURT: Right. But the subject line would be.
13 Okay. So with the content and the subject matter
14 redacted, I'll let the dates in. And who's emailing it would
15 have to be sealed because it identifies the witness by her true
16 identity.
17 MS. POMERANTZ: Okay, your Honor. Thank you.
18 THE COURT: Okay. So, Ms. Sternheim, your team will
19 prepare a redacted -- I'm sorry, I lost the number, K -- what
20 was the defendant's mark?
21 MS. STERNHEIM: K-8.
22 And if I may just supplement the record for a moment.
23 THE COURT: Sure.
24 MS. STERNHEIM: If it is not being offered for the
25 truth, why can't it come in with a limiting instruction? Other
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018466
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document