DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge warns Mr. Everdell that his intended line of questioning for a witness—focusing on what the government didn't do—would violate a prior court order. Mr. Everdell defends his approach as an attempt to elicit evidence about the absence of evidence, but the judge reiterates that the jury's role is to evaluate the evidence the government did present.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, clarifying a prior order and explaining the role of the jury.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing for a line of questioning and responding to the Court's concerns.
|
| your Honor | Judge |
Title used by Mr. Everdell to address the Court.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting service.
|
| government | government agency |
Referred to as the entity presenting evidence in the case, likely the prosecution.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between the Court (judge) and an attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding a proposed line of questioning and whether it violates a prior in limine order.
Southern District
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting company, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a formal legal discussion between a judge (The Court) and an attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding the rules of evidence and court orders during a trial.
Key Quotes (3)
"...asking the agent what she did or didn't do, which is precisely a violation of my order."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge explaining why a certain line of questioning would be impermissible.)
DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg
Quote #1
"The question for the jury is, does the evidence that the government put on, that they deemed credible, prove beyond a reasonable doubt or not the charges."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge defining the central question for the jury and the basis for the in limine holding.)
DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg
Quote #2
"I'm not trying to violate this, which is why we're discussing this, your Honor. I just thought there was some room to be able to elicit evidence about the absence of evidence rather than just argument to the jury, and that's what I was intending to do with this witness."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(The attorney explaining his rationale for the proposed line of questioning to the judge.)
DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,668 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 37 of 197
LCFCmax1
2578
LCFCmax1
2578
1 THE COURT: Or there would be foundation issues,
2 which, if probed into, essentially would be violative of my
3 order to the extent that you're making arguments -- to the
4 extent that foundational inferences are essentially asking the
5 agent what she did or didn't do, which is precisely a violation
6 of my order.
7 And the whole point of the -- I mean, the whole point
8 of not allowing the defense to put on a case about what the
9 government did or didn't do and the motivations and the like is
10 because that's the question for the jury. The question for the
11 jury is, does the evidence that the government put on, that
12 they deemed credible, prove beyond a reasonable doubt or not
13 the charges. That is the core basis of my in limine holding.
14 MR. EVERDELL: I'm not trying to violate this, which
15 is why we're discussing this, your Honor. I just thought there
16 was some room to be able to elicit evidence about the absence
17 of evidence rather than just argument to the jury, and that's
18 what I was intending to do with this witness. If the Court
19 thinks what I've just proposed, that's generally the tenor of
20 the questions on that point are, violative of the order, I
21 might have to think it out and not be able to go into it
22 because of what you're saying, but I hear what you're saying.
23 THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, take it -- imagine it's a
24 modern case, right, and you ask why didn't you get geo location
25 evidence, it's asking what the government did or didn't do.
2 which, if probed into, essentially would be violative of my
3 order to the extent that you're making arguments -- to the
4 extent that foundational inferences are essentially asking the
5 agent what she did or didn't do, which is precisely a violation
6 of my order.
7 And the whole point of the -- I mean, the whole point
8 of not allowing the defense to put on a case about what the
9 government did or didn't do and the motivations and the like is
10 because that's the question for the jury. The question for the
11 jury is, does the evidence that the government put on, that
12 they deemed credible, prove beyond a reasonable doubt or not
13 the charges. That is the core basis of my in limine holding.
14 MR. EVERDELL: I'm not trying to violate this, which
15 is why we're discussing this, your Honor. I just thought there
16 was some room to be able to elicit evidence about the absence
17 of evidence rather than just argument to the jury, and that's
18 what I was intending to do with this witness. If the Court
19 thinks what I've just proposed, that's generally the tenor of
20 the questions on that point are, violative of the order, I
21 might have to think it out and not be able to go into it
22 because of what you're saying, but I hear what you're saying.
23 THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, take it -- imagine it's a
24 modern case, right, and you ask why didn't you get geo location
25 evidence, it's asking what the government did or didn't do.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016766
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document