DOJ-OGR-00013296.jpg
574 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
574 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the admissibility of information on an insurance form, specifically whether listing family members constitutes hearsay. The discussion references the 'Lieberman' case precedent regarding business records and verification procedures.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Sternheim | Defense Attorney |
Arguing regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence within an insurance form.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, ruling on the admissibility of evidence based on the Lieberman case precedent.
|
| Unnamed Witness | Witness |
Described by Ms. Sternheim as lacking personal knowledge of procedures from seven years prior to their employment.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting service listed in the footer.
|
|
| The Circuit |
Refers to the Court of Appeals (likely 2nd Circuit) regarding legal precedence.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction (SDNY) based on the court reporter's name.
|
Relationships (1)
Dialogue in court transcript.
Key Quotes (3)
"putting on the form who you wish to be insured as your family is hearsay."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013296.jpg
Quote #1
"It's content versus the form itself."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013296.jpg
Quote #2
"this witness does not have any personal knowledge as to what the procedures were seven years prior to her becoming employed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013296.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,426 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 262 1723
LC8Cmax1
LC8Cmax1
1 insurance or accepting the offer of insurance in and of itself
2 may be a perk of the business, but putting on the form who you
3 wish to be insured as your family is hearsay.
4 THE COURT: Agreed.
5 MS. STERNHEIM: So the form itself is one thing, the
6 content is something else.
7 THE COURT: I agree.
8 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
9 THE COURT: I think the only potential for -- and
10 you'll look at the Lieberman case, too, is if there is
11 testimony that the employer did something to verify the
12 information on the form.
13 So, for example, if the form says this is my address
14 and the testimony is that when an employee fills out this form,
15 we look at their driver's license to verify that the address is
16 the same, then, as a business, I think, under Lieberman, that
17 comes in. It would have to be something comparable for
18 verification of children -- I think it's children and spouse?
19 MS. STERNHEIM: Correct.
20 THE COURT: In order for this to fit for the content
21 of the form. It's content versus the form itself. It's
22 precisely the line that the circuit draws in Lieberman.
23 MS. STERNHEIM: But in addition, Judge, this witness
24 does not have any personal knowledge as to what the procedures
25 were seven years prior to her becoming employed.
2 may be a perk of the business, but putting on the form who you
3 wish to be insured as your family is hearsay.
4 THE COURT: Agreed.
5 MS. STERNHEIM: So the form itself is one thing, the
6 content is something else.
7 THE COURT: I agree.
8 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
9 THE COURT: I think the only potential for -- and
10 you'll look at the Lieberman case, too, is if there is
11 testimony that the employer did something to verify the
12 information on the form.
13 So, for example, if the form says this is my address
14 and the testimony is that when an employee fills out this form,
15 we look at their driver's license to verify that the address is
16 the same, then, as a business, I think, under Lieberman, that
17 comes in. It would have to be something comparable for
18 verification of children -- I think it's children and spouse?
19 MS. STERNHEIM: Correct.
20 THE COURT: In order for this to fit for the content
21 of the form. It's content versus the form itself. It's
22 precisely the line that the circuit draws in Lieberman.
23 MS. STERNHEIM: But in addition, Judge, this witness
24 does not have any personal knowledge as to what the procedures
25 were seven years prior to her becoming employed.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013296
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document