DOJ-OGR-00016167.jpg
638 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
638 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a discussion between the Court and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding opening statements. The Judge overrules an objection but questions the defense's basis for suggesting attorneys told witnesses what to say. Mr. Pagliuca argues that in 2008, a witness named Carolyn provided detailed interrogatories, depositions, and a complaint that did not include Ms. Maxwell, implying her later inclusion may have been influenced.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Sternheim | Attorney |
Mentioned in the header 'Opening - Ms. Sternheim'
|
| The Court | Judge |
Ruling on an objection regarding opening statements and argumentation about witness coaching.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Defense Attorney |
Arguing that witness testimony changed over time, specifically regarding the inclusion of Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Carolyn | Witness/Victim |
Cited by Mr. Pagliuca as an example of a witness whose 2008 statements did not include Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
referred to as 'Ms. Maxwell'; subject of the discussion regarding her absence from 2008 complaints/depositions.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in footer
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by DOJ-OGR bates stamp)
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Court hearing regarding opening statements and admissibility of arguments about witness coaching.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY) based on 'Southern District Reporters' and area code 212.
|
Relationships (1)
Transcript discusses Carolyn's previous legal filings (2008) which allegedly did not name Maxwell.
Key Quotes (4)
"I'm going to overrule it at the opening stage."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016167.jpg
Quote #1
"I don't think you have any basis to say that the attorneys told the witnesses what to say."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016167.jpg
Quote #2
"We have in 2008 -- I'll use Carolyn as the example -- answers to interrogatories that are detailed that do not include Ms. Maxwell"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016167.jpg
Quote #3
"a 91-page complaint detailed, but does not include Ms. Maxwell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016167.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,640 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 741 Filed 08/10/22 Page 57 of 106 61
LBTVMAX3 Opening - Ms. Sternheim
LBTVMAX3 Opening - Ms. Sternheim
1 topics to ask the client about. That certainly couldn't be a
2 good-faith basis to suggest to this jury that there will be
3 evidence before them at this trial; that these were more
4 manipulated by their attorneys who cultivated their specific
5 stories told to the government. We think that's inappropriate,
6 your Honor.
7 THE COURT: I'm going to overrule it at the opening
8 stage. I did not preclude the line of argumentation; I wasn't
9 asked to preclude the line of argumentation. You raised the
10 prospect -- you did certainly and I appreciate it, raise the
11 prospect related to a subpoena of a witness's attorney, which I
12 agree with the government is entirely unclear to me how that
13 would be able -- but if the proffers that it's based on
14 existing nonprivileged information from which the jury could
15 infer that these attorneys structured in some way the questions
16 that were asked, I think the line is I don't think you have any
17 basis to say that the attorneys told the witnesses what to say.
18 What evidence are you going to put in that shows the
19 attorneys told the witnesses what to say?
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, so we back up a little bit, your
21 Honor. We have in 2008 -- I'll use Carolyn as the example --
22 answers to interrogatories that are detailed that do not
23 include Ms. Maxwell; deposition testimony that is detailed but
24 does not include Ms. Maxwell; a 91-page complaint detailed, but
25 does not include Ms. Maxwell.
2 good-faith basis to suggest to this jury that there will be
3 evidence before them at this trial; that these were more
4 manipulated by their attorneys who cultivated their specific
5 stories told to the government. We think that's inappropriate,
6 your Honor.
7 THE COURT: I'm going to overrule it at the opening
8 stage. I did not preclude the line of argumentation; I wasn't
9 asked to preclude the line of argumentation. You raised the
10 prospect -- you did certainly and I appreciate it, raise the
11 prospect related to a subpoena of a witness's attorney, which I
12 agree with the government is entirely unclear to me how that
13 would be able -- but if the proffers that it's based on
14 existing nonprivileged information from which the jury could
15 infer that these attorneys structured in some way the questions
16 that were asked, I think the line is I don't think you have any
17 basis to say that the attorneys told the witnesses what to say.
18 What evidence are you going to put in that shows the
19 attorneys told the witnesses what to say?
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, so we back up a little bit, your
21 Honor. We have in 2008 -- I'll use Carolyn as the example --
22 answers to interrogatories that are detailed that do not
23 include Ms. Maxwell; deposition testimony that is detailed but
24 does not include Ms. Maxwell; a 91-page complaint detailed, but
25 does not include Ms. Maxwell.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016167
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016167
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document