DOJ-OGR-00018883.jpg
606 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
606 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues against the admission of a school record (Government Exhibit 761) which identifies Mr. Epstein as a financial guarantor for a family, arguing the school did not verify that specific piece of information. The Court explains that the evidence was admitted to show that the family indicated Epstein was providing financial assistance at the time.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein | Subject of discussion/Financier |
Identified in court as providing financial assistance to a family regarding school fees.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney (Defense) |
Arguing objections regarding the admission of Government Exhibit 761 and requesting jury instructions.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Explaining the rationale for admitting evidence regarding Epstein's financial assistance.
|
| Ms. Sternheim | Attorney |
Addressing the judge regarding the admission of evidence.
|
| The Family | Beneficiaries |
Indicated that Epstein was providing them financial assistance.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The School |
Unnamed educational institution that maintained the records in Exhibit 761.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution team offering the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion of evidence admissibility.
Southern District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court (implied SDNY via reporter name and case context).
|
Relationships (1)
Transcript states 'Mr. Epstein was providing financial assistance' to the family.
Key Quotes (2)
"the testimony for Government Exhibit 761 was that the school received the record, integrated it into its files, and relied on it for its admissions decisions"Source
DOJ-OGR-00018883.jpg
Quote #1
"the relevance was that the family at the time was indicating that -- whether it's true or not, but that Mr. Epstein was providing financial assistance."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018883.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,551 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 262 1726
LC8Cmax1
LC8Cmax1
1 articulated a theory like that with regard to this record, but
2 the testimony for Government Exhibit 761 was that the school
3 received the record, integrated it into its files, and relied
4 on it for its admissions decisions, which are a regular
5 function and practice of the school. So it would come in as a
6 business record under that line of cases.
7 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, they didn't rely on the
8 financial guarantor piece of it, which is what the government
9 is offering for the truth of the matter asserted therein, and
10 that's the piece that we object to. If they want to redact
11 that piece, I would renew my objection to the admission of that
12 and take out the piece that they're offering that was not
13 verified by the school --
14 THE COURT: I'm telling you my rationale at the time
15 for ruling on the objection was that -- the relevance was that
16 the family at the time was indicating that -- whether it's true
17 or not, but that Mr. Epstein was providing financial
18 assistance.
19 MS. MENNINGER: If it was admitted for a limited
20 purpose then, your Honor, I would ask that there be some type
21 of instruction given -- we can take up at the charging
22 conference about the purposes for which that document can be
23 considered by the jury.
24 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I just want to make sure that
25 the Court is aware, whereas I don't object to the admission as
2 the testimony for Government Exhibit 761 was that the school
3 received the record, integrated it into its files, and relied
4 on it for its admissions decisions, which are a regular
5 function and practice of the school. So it would come in as a
6 business record under that line of cases.
7 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, they didn't rely on the
8 financial guarantor piece of it, which is what the government
9 is offering for the truth of the matter asserted therein, and
10 that's the piece that we object to. If they want to redact
11 that piece, I would renew my objection to the admission of that
12 and take out the piece that they're offering that was not
13 verified by the school --
14 THE COURT: I'm telling you my rationale at the time
15 for ruling on the objection was that -- the relevance was that
16 the family at the time was indicating that -- whether it's true
17 or not, but that Mr. Epstein was providing financial
18 assistance.
19 MS. MENNINGER: If it was admitted for a limited
20 purpose then, your Honor, I would ask that there be some type
21 of instruction given -- we can take up at the charging
22 conference about the purposes for which that document can be
23 considered by the jury.
24 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I just want to make sure that
25 the Court is aware, whereas I don't object to the admission as
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018883
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document