DOJ-OGR-00016399.jpg
567 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
567 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate during the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues for the relevance of asking the witness if she wanted Epstein prosecuted in 2006, suggesting the witness's motivations have changed due to a subsequent civil lawsuit and application to a compensation fund. Opposing counsel Ms. Pomerantz objects, and the judge ultimately disallows the line of questioning.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the case, questioning the relevance of a line of questioning and ultimately ruling on it.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney |
Attorney conducting a cross-examination, arguing for the relevance of questioning a witness about their past desire t...
|
| A. Farmer | Witness |
The person being cross-examined in the court proceeding.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the subject of a potential prosecution in 2006.
|
|
| Ms. Pomerantz | Attorney |
Attorney who objects to Ms. Menninger's line of questioning, stating she doesn't see its relevance.
|
| Agent Kuyrkendall | Agent |
Mentioned by Ms. Menninger as someone who testified that victims from '06 to '08 did not want prosecution.
|
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 cross-examination of witness A. Farmer, during which a legal argument occurs over the relevance of a question about the witness's desire to prosecute Epstein in 2006.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (3)
Ms. Menninger, an attorney, is arguing a legal point before the judge (The Court) during a trial.
Ms. Pomerantz, an attorney, addresses the judge ('Your Honor') to object to a line of questioning.
They are opposing counsel in a legal proceeding, with Ms. Pomerantz objecting to Ms. Menninger's questioning of a witness.
Key Quotes (3)
"Because she's changed her mind about wanting people prosecuted in connection with this case. She has a different bias today than she did in 2006; that she brought up her lawsuit in connection with applying to the fund and filing a civil lawsuit."Source
— Ms. Menninger
(Explaining to the Court the relevance of asking a witness if she wanted Epstein prosecuted in 2006.)
DOJ-OGR-00016399.jpg
Quote #1
"Agent Kuyrkendall is under subpoena, your Honor, and testified that none of the victims she talked to in '06 to '08 wanted them prosecuted."Source
— Ms. Menninger
(Providing further justification for her line of questioning by referencing prior testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00016399.jpg
Quote #2
"You're not doing that. I've ruled on"Source
— The Court
(Denying Ms. Menninger's line of questioning.)
DOJ-OGR-00016399.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,372 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 183 of 267
LCAVMAX6 A. Farmer - cross
LCAVMAX6 A. Farmer - cross
1 THE COURT: -- in 2006.
2 What's the next question?
3 MS. MENNINGER: It would just be, You did not want
4 Epstein prosecuted in 2006?
5 THE COURT: You want to ask her if she wanted Epstein
6 prosecuted in 2006?
7 MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
8 THE COURT: What is the relevance of that?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Because she's changed her mind about
10 wanting people prosecuted in connection with this case. She
11 has a different bias today than she did in 2006; that she
12 brought up her lawsuit in connection with applying to the fund
13 and filing a civil lawsuit. When she didn't have those
14 motivations in 2006, she didn't want to prosecute. It's a
15 clear distinction in two different periods of time, 15 years
16 apart. It goes to our money theme, your Honor, that we opened
17 on.
18 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just don't see the
19 relevance or basis for this line of questioning.
20 THE COURT: You're going to ask her if she wanted
21 Epstein prosecuted in 2006. And if she says yes, then what?
22 MS. MENNINGER: Agent Kuyrkendall is under subpoena,
23 your Honor, and testified that none of the victims she talked
24 to in '06 to '08 wanted them prosecuted.
25 THE COURT: You're not doing that. I've ruled on
2 What's the next question?
3 MS. MENNINGER: It would just be, You did not want
4 Epstein prosecuted in 2006?
5 THE COURT: You want to ask her if she wanted Epstein
6 prosecuted in 2006?
7 MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
8 THE COURT: What is the relevance of that?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Because she's changed her mind about
10 wanting people prosecuted in connection with this case. She
11 has a different bias today than she did in 2006; that she
12 brought up her lawsuit in connection with applying to the fund
13 and filing a civil lawsuit. When she didn't have those
14 motivations in 2006, she didn't want to prosecute. It's a
15 clear distinction in two different periods of time, 15 years
16 apart. It goes to our money theme, your Honor, that we opened
17 on.
18 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just don't see the
19 relevance or basis for this line of questioning.
20 THE COURT: You're going to ask her if she wanted
21 Epstein prosecuted in 2006. And if she says yes, then what?
22 MS. MENNINGER: Agent Kuyrkendall is under subpoena,
23 your Honor, and testified that none of the victims she talked
24 to in '06 to '08 wanted them prosecuted.
25 THE COURT: You're not doing that. I've ruled on
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016399
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document