DOJ-OGR-00017758.jpg
580 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
580 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a settlement agreement. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that the document is relevant to show the amount of money a witness named Jane received, while the opposing counsel and the Court discuss whether the document's complex legal language would be unfairly prejudicial or confusing to the jury. The Court compares the document's complexity to other legal agreements, like cooperation agreements, that are regularly shown to juries.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a cross-examination ("Jane - Cross") and referred to as "this witness" in t...
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, arguing for the admission of a settlement document to the jury.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, responding to the Court's questions and arguing against the document's admission.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, presiding over the legal argument and questioning the attorneys. Addressed as "your Honor".
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency that created the document.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument during a cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The discussion is between attorneys (Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe) and the Court about the admissibility of a settlement agreement document, focusing on whether its legal language is too confusing for the jury.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (3)
Ms. Menninger addresses the Court as "Your Honor" and presents legal arguments for the judge's consideration.
Ms. Moe addresses the Court as "your Honor" and responds to the judge's legal questions.
They are on opposing sides of a legal argument regarding the admissibility of a document in court.
Key Quotes (3)
"Your Honor, it's a representative -- it's a documentary representative of the amount of money that she received in the settlement."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Arguing for the relevance and admissibility of a settlement document.)
DOJ-OGR-00017758.jpg
Quote #1
"The government puts in cooperation agreements all the time. Those are not the models of clarity."Source
— THE COURT
(Comparing the complexity of the settlement agreement in question to other legal documents commonly presented to juries.)
DOJ-OGR-00017758.jpg
Quote #2
"This is comparable legal language, isn't it?"Source
— THE COURT
(Questioning the argument that the settlement document's language is uniquely confusing or inappropriate for a jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00017758.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,452 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 149 of 264 560
LC1Qmax4
Jane - Cross
LC1Qmax4
Jane - Cross
1 complicated legal terms about a settlement agreement between
2 this witness and an estate that's not a party to this case. We
3 think this document is confusing to the jury and don't
4 understand any potential impeachment relevance of the
5 particular terms of the settlement.
6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it's a representative --
7 it's a documentary representative of the amount of money that
8 she received in the settlement. I don't know what's confusing
9 about that. I am not going to spend a lot of time arguing some
10 legal clauses or anything like that, but I think our jury is
11 sophisticated enough to know what a settlement agreement looks
12 like and the amount of money that she received. She's
13 contesting that that's the amount of money she received, but I
14 don't think that precluding us from putting in a document
15 because it has legal language in it is an appropriate --
16 THE COURT: That's the 403 argument, that it's legal
17 language?
18 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: The government puts in cooperation
20 agreements all the time. Those are not the models of clarity.
21 MS. MOE: Of course, your Honor, and that's certainly
22 true --
23 THE COURT: This is comparable legal language, isn't
24 it?
25 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. I think the difference
2 this witness and an estate that's not a party to this case. We
3 think this document is confusing to the jury and don't
4 understand any potential impeachment relevance of the
5 particular terms of the settlement.
6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it's a representative --
7 it's a documentary representative of the amount of money that
8 she received in the settlement. I don't know what's confusing
9 about that. I am not going to spend a lot of time arguing some
10 legal clauses or anything like that, but I think our jury is
11 sophisticated enough to know what a settlement agreement looks
12 like and the amount of money that she received. She's
13 contesting that that's the amount of money she received, but I
14 don't think that precluding us from putting in a document
15 because it has legal language in it is an appropriate --
16 THE COURT: That's the 403 argument, that it's legal
17 language?
18 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: The government puts in cooperation
20 agreements all the time. Those are not the models of clarity.
21 MS. MOE: Of course, your Honor, and that's certainly
22 true --
23 THE COURT: This is comparable legal language, isn't
24 it?
25 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. I think the difference
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017758
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document