DOJ-OGR-00017596.jpg
577 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
577 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (Defense) and Ms. Comey (Prosecution) regarding Federal Rule 16 and the disclosure of impeachment evidence. The Defense argues that documents used for impeachment (bias, motive, memory) do not need to be produced to the government beforehand, while the Prosecution contests this interpretation.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Menninger | Defense Attorney |
Arguing that impeachment documents affecting memory, bias, or motive are not covered by Rule 16 disclosure requirements.
|
| Ms. Comey | Prosecutor |
Arguing that defense exhibits must be produced and disputing the definition of admissible impeachment evidence.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the dispute regarding Rule 16 and evidence admissibility; instructs counsel to brief the issue.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) discussing evidentiary disputes regarding Rule 16 and impeachment materials.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the court reporting agency name and case context.
|
Relationships (1)
Debating the interpretation of Rule 16 and admissibility of evidence in court.
Key Quotes (4)
"If it is an impeachment document, it is not covered by the rule."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017596.jpg
Quote #1
"Impeachment is not limited to prior inconsistent statements. That's just not the state of the law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017596.jpg
Quote #2
"Nothing else is admissible as impeachment by my reading of the rules of evidence."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017596.jpg
Quote #3
"So if the witness testifies I live in a blue house and you go out tonight and take a photograph of the house and it's a red house --"Source
DOJ-OGR-00017596.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,448 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 234 of 247 393
LBUCmax7
LBUCmax7
1 introduced, it's in violation of Rule 16. I think to the
2 extent there are other exhibits that the defense intends to
3 offer that have not already been produced to us, we would ask
4 that the Court order that they make those productions
5 forthwith.
6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we have a very different
7 view of Rule 16. If it is an impeachment document, it is not
8 covered by the rule. We will brief this tonight if your Honor
9 would like. I have a very different view, apparently, than
10 Ms. Comey.
11 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, we do not believe that any
12 prior inconsistent statements that would be admissible --
13 THE COURT: It's not a prior inconsistent statement.
14 MS. COMEY: Exactly, your Honor. Nothing else is
15 admissible as impeachment by my reading of the rules of
16 evidence.
17 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, anything that goes to the
18 witness's memory, bias, motive, all of those are impeachment
19 materials. Impeachment is not limited to prior inconsistent
20 statements. That's just not the state of the law.
21 THE COURT: You can brief it. So if the witness
22 testifies I live in a blue house and you go out tonight and
23 take a photograph of the house and it's a red house --
24 MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: -- and you want to introduce a photograph
2 extent there are other exhibits that the defense intends to
3 offer that have not already been produced to us, we would ask
4 that the Court order that they make those productions
5 forthwith.
6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we have a very different
7 view of Rule 16. If it is an impeachment document, it is not
8 covered by the rule. We will brief this tonight if your Honor
9 would like. I have a very different view, apparently, than
10 Ms. Comey.
11 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, we do not believe that any
12 prior inconsistent statements that would be admissible --
13 THE COURT: It's not a prior inconsistent statement.
14 MS. COMEY: Exactly, your Honor. Nothing else is
15 admissible as impeachment by my reading of the rules of
16 evidence.
17 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, anything that goes to the
18 witness's memory, bias, motive, all of those are impeachment
19 materials. Impeachment is not limited to prior inconsistent
20 statements. That's just not the state of the law.
21 THE COURT: You can brief it. So if the witness
22 testifies I live in a blue house and you go out tonight and
23 take a photograph of the house and it's a red house --
24 MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: -- and you want to introduce a photograph
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017596
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document