DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg
554 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
554 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach). They discuss procedural issues, including a potential motion to call a witness's brother, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony, and the government's communication with a witness named Jane after she left the stand.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney (implied) |
Speaker in the court transcript, addressing the court on procedural matters.
|
| THE COURT | Judge/Honor |
Speaker in the court transcript, presiding over the proceedings and asking questions.
|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Attorney (implied) |
Speaker in the court transcript, responding to the court.
|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert (implied) |
Mentioned in the context of sharing his testimony with two other experts.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned as a witness who was released from the stand.
|
| Carolyn | Witness (implied) |
Mentioned in the header note "Carolyn - cross", suggesting she is the witness being cross-examined.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document as the court reporting service.
|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned as having asked for permission to speak with the witness Jane about logistical matters.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
A hearing or trial session where procedural matters are being discussed.
Courtroom (implied)
A final pretrial conference held on November 23rd where a request was made to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with two experts.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (3)
Ms. Menninger addresses the court as "your Honor" and discusses legal motions and procedures with the judge.
Mr. Rohrbach responds directly to the court's questions during the proceeding.
They are both participating in the same court proceeding, likely as opposing counsel, as they both interact with the judge on procedural points and confirm there was no objection to a process.
Key Quotes (3)
"If I grant your motion, do you intend to call the brother?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge is asking Ms. Menninger about her intentions regarding a witness if a motion is granted.)
DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg
Quote #1
"One is you may recall that when we began at the final pretrial conference on November 23rd, we specifically requested permission to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with our two experts because we believed that this issue precluded otherwise witnesses listening in or finding out about the testimony of other witnesses, one."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Ms. Menninger is reminding the court of a previous request made during a pretrial conference.)
DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg
Quote #2
"And then the second point is when Jane was released from the stand and the government asked for permission to speak with her about logistical matters, I said at that time, So long as she's admonished that she's not to"Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Ms. Menninger is recounting a past event concerning the witness Jane and the government's communication with her.)
DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,374 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 159 of 264 1585
LC7VMAX5 Carolyn - cross
LC7VMAX5 Carolyn - cross
1 MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Right?
3 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes.
4 THE COURT: Okay. In other words, let's put it this
5 way: If I grant your motion, do you intend to call the
6 brother?
7 MS. MENNINGER: It seems highly unlikely, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 MS. MENNINGER: But, your Honor, two very quick
10 factual issues. One is you may recall that when we began at
11 the final pretrial conference on November 23rd, we specifically
12 requested permission to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with our
13 two experts because we believed that this issue precluded
14 otherwise witnesses listening in or finding out about the
15 testimony of other witnesses, one.
16 The second point is --
17 THE COURT: And I said talk it out, confer, and then
18 brief me if you have disagreement. I received no briefing.
19 MS. MENNINGER: I think there was no objection to that
20 process, your Honor.
21 MR. ROHRBACH: There was no objection.
22 MS. MENNINGER: And then the second point is when Jane
23 was released from the stand and the government asked for
24 permission to speak with her about logistical matters, I said
25 at that time, So long as she's admonished that she's not to
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018757
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document