DOJ-OGR-00013349.jpg
606 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
606 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe argues for the admissibility of names and phone numbers from recorded messages, not for their truth, but as evidence that certain individuals contacted a specific house, consistent with prior victim testimony. She contends this evidence qualifies as a business record.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Hesse | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a direct examination.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaking to Ms. Moe, asking clarifying questions about the admissibility of evidence.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Arguing for the admission of evidence (names and phone numbers) by explaining its purpose and how it qualifies as a b...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (3 events)
prior to 2022-08-10
A victim testified the day before the current proceeding.
courtroom
unnamed victim
prior to 2022-08-10
Victims and other individuals called a house to schedule massage appointments.
the house
unnamed victims
unnamed individuals
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a place that victims and other individuals called to schedule massage appointments.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"So you have to take the objection when it comes. I don't think there is a waiver theory as to future objections."Source
— THE COURT
(Advising Ms. Moe on legal procedure regarding objections.)
DOJ-OGR-00013349.jpg
Quote #1
"And here, we're not offering this for the truth of the particular phone number, but that a person identifying themselves that way had called and left a message on that date."Source
— MS. MOE
(Explaining the legal basis for offering names and phone numbers as evidence, arguing it is not hearsay.)
DOJ-OGR-00013349.jpg
Quote #2
"So the contention is that it's a business record?"Source
— THE COURT
(Asking for clarification on Ms. Moe's legal argument for admitting the evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00013349.jpg
Quote #3
"So it's confirming that a person identifying themself that way contacted the house at that time."Source
— MS. MOE
(Summarizing her argument that the recorded calls serve to confirm contact was made, not for the truth of the statements within the calls.)
DOJ-OGR-00013349.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,508 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 71 of 262 1776
LC8Cmax3
Hesse - direct
LC8Cmax3
Hesse - direct
1 way we offered similar messages through a previous witness.
2 THE COURT: So you have to take the objection when it
3 comes. I don't think there is a waiver theory as to future
4 objections.
5 Are you seeking to offer the names and phone numbers
6 for their truth?
7 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And here, this witness has
8 testified that they would receive these calls, memorialize it
9 at the same time the person was recording it. And here, we're
10 not offering this for the truth of the particular phone number,
11 but that a person identifying themselves that way had called
12 and left a message on that date. That is consistent with the
13 testimony of victims who described calling the house and the
14 name of a victim who testified yesterday is in these messages.
15 The names are also consistent with the names of other
16 individuals who witnesses have testified about contacting the
17 house and being involved in scheduling massage appointments.
18 So with respect to the business records issue, here,
19 this witness has testified --
20 THE COURT: So the contention is that it's a business
21 record?
22 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In addition, it's
23 memorializing the statement of the person calling at the time
24 they made it. So it's confirming that a person identifying
25 themself that way contacted the house at that time.
2 THE COURT: So you have to take the objection when it
3 comes. I don't think there is a waiver theory as to future
4 objections.
5 Are you seeking to offer the names and phone numbers
6 for their truth?
7 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And here, this witness has
8 testified that they would receive these calls, memorialize it
9 at the same time the person was recording it. And here, we're
10 not offering this for the truth of the particular phone number,
11 but that a person identifying themselves that way had called
12 and left a message on that date. That is consistent with the
13 testimony of victims who described calling the house and the
14 name of a victim who testified yesterday is in these messages.
15 The names are also consistent with the names of other
16 individuals who witnesses have testified about contacting the
17 house and being involved in scheduling massage appointments.
18 So with respect to the business records issue, here,
19 this witness has testified --
20 THE COURT: So the contention is that it's a business
21 record?
22 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In addition, it's
23 memorializing the statement of the person calling at the time
24 they made it. So it's confirming that a person identifying
25 themself that way contacted the house at that time.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013349
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document