DOJ-OGR-00018408.jpg
566 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
566 KB
Summary
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a sidebar discussion where a judge rules to exclude evidence of a single sexual harassment allegation due to a lack of a pattern or proffer of falsity. Following the ruling, two attorneys, Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim, discuss a planned line of questioning for a witness. Ms. Sternheim clarifies her intent is not to ask about the witness's ex-husband, but rather to ask if the witness had requested a friend to plant drugs on the father of her child.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaking to counsel during a sidebar, making a ruling on the admissibility of a sexual harassment claim.
|
| MS. POMERANTZ | Counsel |
Addressing the court regarding a line of questioning for a witness, initially believing it involved the witness's ex-...
|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Counsel |
Correcting Ms. Pomerantz and clarifying her intended line of questioning for a witness, which involves the witness al...
|
| Unnamed witness | Witness |
The subject of a discussion between counsel regarding planned questioning about an unsigned declaration, her ex-husba...
|
| Unnamed witness's exhusband | Ex-husband of witness |
Mentioned by Ms. Pomerantz in a question to the court about a planned line of questioning, which was then clarified b...
|
| Unnamed father of her child | Father of witness's child |
Mentioned by Ms. Sternheim as the target of an alleged plot by the witness to have drugs planted on him.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A sidebar discussion between the judge and counsel with the jury not present, where the judge made rulings on evidence and counsel discussed planned lines of questioning for a witness.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
Both are identified as counsel and are addressing the court and each other during a legal proceeding, indicating they are attorneys involved in the same case, likely on opposing sides.
The document explicitly refers to the witness's 'exhusband'.
Ms. Sternheim refers to the 'father of her child', indicating a parental relationship with the witness.
Key Quotes (2)
"On the sexual harassment claim, I'm not going to allow it if there were a pattern of repeated allegations of the same kind, even if you didn't have a proffer as to falsity, then it would be a closer call, but in the absence of any proffer as to falsity and in light of the one instance of sexual harassment, I won't allow it."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's ruling on the admissibility of a sexual harassment claim as evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00018408.jpg
Quote #1
"No, it has nothing to do with her exhusband. I was going to ask if she asked a friend or former person in her life if he had -- she had asked him to plant the drugs on the father of her child."Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Clarifying her intended line of questioning for a witness, correcting Ms. Pomerantz's assumption that it was about the witness's ex-husband.)
DOJ-OGR-00018408.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,422 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 71 of 261 1232
LC6Cmax3
LC6Cmax3
1 (Recess)
2 (Jury not present)
3 THE COURT: Counsel, let me just finish up where I am
4 before we get going.
5 (At the sidebar)
6 THE COURT: On the sexual harassment claim, I'm not
7 going to allow it if there were a pattern of repeated
8 allegations of the same kind, even if you didn't have a proffer
9 as to falsity, then it would be a closer call, but in the
10 absence of any proffer as to falsity and in light of the one
11 instance of sexual harassment, I won't allow it.
12 I think our other open on is the tabloid; correct?
13 I'm going to allow that because there is a notion of exception
14 of a friend which goes to the credibility and is impeachment.
15 I think that resolves all of our open issues.
16 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I wanted to note one thing
17 that I had the chance to go back and look at some of the 3500
18 material, and I know that there was planning to ask the witness
19 about an unsigned declaration involving I think the witness's
20 exhusband; is that right?
21 MS. STERNHEIM: No, it has nothing to do with her
22 exhusband. I was going to ask if she asked a friend or former
23 person in her life if he had -- she had asked him to plant the
24 drugs on the father of her child.
25 MS. POMERANTZ: So I wanted to flag this because I had
2 (Jury not present)
3 THE COURT: Counsel, let me just finish up where I am
4 before we get going.
5 (At the sidebar)
6 THE COURT: On the sexual harassment claim, I'm not
7 going to allow it if there were a pattern of repeated
8 allegations of the same kind, even if you didn't have a proffer
9 as to falsity, then it would be a closer call, but in the
10 absence of any proffer as to falsity and in light of the one
11 instance of sexual harassment, I won't allow it.
12 I think our other open on is the tabloid; correct?
13 I'm going to allow that because there is a notion of exception
14 of a friend which goes to the credibility and is impeachment.
15 I think that resolves all of our open issues.
16 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I wanted to note one thing
17 that I had the chance to go back and look at some of the 3500
18 material, and I know that there was planning to ask the witness
19 about an unsigned declaration involving I think the witness's
20 exhusband; is that right?
21 MS. STERNHEIM: No, it has nothing to do with her
22 exhusband. I was going to ask if she asked a friend or former
23 person in her life if he had -- she had asked him to plant the
24 drugs on the father of her child.
25 MS. POMERANTZ: So I wanted to flag this because I had
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018408
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document