DOJ-OGR-00018937.jpg
613 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
613 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the admissibility of spiral-bound message pads used by household staff. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues these are valid business records created under strict instructions from the defendant, while the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) counters that many messages are undated and unsigned, though noting Ms. Hesse's messages were 'well maintained.'
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney (Prosecution) |
Arguing for the admissibility of message pads as business records.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the evidentiary discussion.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Attorney (Defense) |
Arguing against the consistency and admissibility of the message pads.
|
| Ms. Hesse | Witness / Household Staff |
Mentioned as having messages that were 'pretty well maintained'; testifying witness (indicated by header 'Hesse - dir...
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Referenced as giving 'particular restrictions' to the household (Ghislaine Maxwell, implied by case number).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting service listed in footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court filing date of the transcript regarding evidentiary objections.
Courtroom (SDNY)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Residence where the message pads were kept and employees worked.
|
|
|
Court jurisdiction (implied by Southern District Reporters).
|
Relationships (2)
Context of her taking messages and following household instructions.
Reference to 'particular restrictions given by the defendant' to the household.
Key Quotes (4)
"the instructions at the household were to take contemporaneous messages as they came in, in a message pad exactly like this."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018937.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Hesse's messages, for example, are pretty well maintained"Source
DOJ-OGR-00018937.jpg
Quote #2
"there are many multiples that are unsigned, undated, and don't fall"Source
DOJ-OGR-00018937.jpg
Quote #3
"particular restrictions given by the defendant."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018937.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,537 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 75 of 262 1780
LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct
LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct
1 So I think, with respect to the objection, we start
2 with the record was made at or near the time that the call came
3 in. So I think she's testified what she was instructed to do.
4 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Which included indicating a date and time
6 of the call and the like?
7 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In our view, that meets
8 that prong of the business records exception.
9 On that score, I would note, your Honor, this is now
10 the second employee to testify that the instructions at the
11 household were to take contemporaneous messages as they came
12 in, in a message pad exactly like this. So there is now a
13 foundation in the record to show that this was the practice of
14 the household, these were the instructions the employees were
15 given.
16 Again, it's a spiral bound book, so we have a series
17 of messages in sequential order with dates and times
18 memorializing messages made. And the testimony has now been
19 twice that that was the practice of the household and
20 particular restrictions given by the defendant.
21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, on that point, factually,
22 if you look at these messages, it belies the statement just
23 made, because Ms. Hesse's messages, for example, are pretty
24 well maintained, but when you go through these messages, there
25 are many multiples that are unsigned, undated, and don't fall
2 with the record was made at or near the time that the call came
3 in. So I think she's testified what she was instructed to do.
4 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Which included indicating a date and time
6 of the call and the like?
7 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In our view, that meets
8 that prong of the business records exception.
9 On that score, I would note, your Honor, this is now
10 the second employee to testify that the instructions at the
11 household were to take contemporaneous messages as they came
12 in, in a message pad exactly like this. So there is now a
13 foundation in the record to show that this was the practice of
14 the household, these were the instructions the employees were
15 given.
16 Again, it's a spiral bound book, so we have a series
17 of messages in sequential order with dates and times
18 memorializing messages made. And the testimony has now been
19 twice that that was the practice of the household and
20 particular restrictions given by the defendant.
21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, on that point, factually,
22 if you look at these messages, it belies the statement just
23 made, because Ms. Hesse's messages, for example, are pretty
24 well maintained, but when you go through these messages, there
25 are many multiples that are unsigned, undated, and don't fall
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018937
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document