DOJ-OGR-00017286.jpg

548 KB

Extraction Summary

4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court transcript
File Size: 548 KB
Summary

A court transcript page (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey) regarding the handling and redaction of jury notes. The parties discuss that counsel knows the identity of jurors, allowing them to see unredacted notes, but public exhibits must be redacted. The transcript ends with the Court reading a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Ms. Sternheim Attorney (Defense)
Discussing access to jury notes and arguments.
The Court Judge
Presiding over the proceedings, managing jury notes and redactions.
Ms. Menninger Attorney
Volunteers that they are 'pretty good' at redaction.
Ms. Comey Attorney (Prosecution)
Suggests procedure for handling electronic copies and redaction of jury notes.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
Southern District Reporters, P.C.
DOJ
Implied by DOJ-OGR-00017286 stamp

Timeline (2 events)

August 10, 2022 (Filed)
Court proceeding regarding handling of jury notes and redactions.
Courtroom
N/A
Recess pending verdict
Courtroom
All parties

Locations (1)

Location Context
Court jurisdiction (SDNY)

Relationships (2)

Ms. Sternheim Attorney/Judge The Court
Dialogue exchange regarding procedure.
Ms. Comey Attorney/Judge The Court
Dialogue exchange regarding redaction protocol.

Key Quotes (4)

"Actually, counsel are aware of the identity of the jurors; so I'm comfortable with counsel seeing the note."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00017286.jpg
Quote #1
"We're pretty good at it."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00017286.jpg
Quote #2
"Recess pending verdict"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00017286.jpg
Quote #3
"We would like to end today at 5 p.m., deliberate from"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00017286.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,347 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 19 3099
LCLVMAXT
1 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
2 THE COURT: Actually, counsel are aware of the
3 identity of the jurors; so I'm comfortable with counsel seeing
4 the note. And then I'll redact for purposes of public exhibit.
5 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the primary reason is so that
6 we can, as the parties, look at it and analyze it and, when you
7 come down, be prepared to make the arguments. It has nothing
8 to do with using it for any other purpose.
9 THE COURT: No, I understand.
10 Okay. So do you need these now or do you want --
11 MS. STERNHEIM: We'd like to have copies.
12 THE COURT: Of course.
13 MS. STERNHEIM: But it's not as immediate.
14 THE COURT: Okay. I will figure out who knows how to
15 do a redaction.
16 MS. MENNINGER: We're pretty good at it.
17 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, it is true that the parties
18 know the names of the jurors; so if the Court wanted to send an
19 electronic copy of the note to the parties, the parties could
20 redact it and then send a redacted version back to the Court.
21 THE COURT: All right. We'll do that. Thank you.
22 MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
23 (Recess pending verdict)
24 THE COURT: I have a note.
25 We would like to end today at 5 p.m., deliberate from
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017286

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document