DOJ-OGR-00016827.jpg
623 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
623 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge. The discussion concerns limiting the scope of questioning for a witness (identified in the header as Dubin) regarding 'sexualized massages' and misconduct involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Mr. Pagliuca argues that the witness's lack of knowledge regarding inappropriate activity is relevant to why she continued dating 'him' (Epstein).
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney |
Arguing to limit the scope of questioning to specific individuals and timeframes.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Attorney |
Responding to the judge, explaining the logic of his questioning regarding the witness's relationship history.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Instructing counsel to narrow the timeframe of questioning.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned regarding whether she committed misconduct with other people.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate |
Mentioned regarding whether he committed misconduct; also referred to as 'him' whom the witness dated.
|
| Dubin | Witness |
Name appears in the header 'Dubin - direct', likely Eva Dubin.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp)
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Court filing date of the transcript document.
Court
Unknown
Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the court reporter firm name, likely SDNY.
|
Relationships (2)
Mr. Pagliuca refers to the witness: 'after she stopped dating him' and 'I doubt she would have been dating him'.
Mentioned together: 'whether Maxwell and Epstein committed misconduct'
Key Quotes (4)
"It's not before the jury whether Maxwell and Epstein committed misconduct with other people"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016827.jpg
Quote #1
"The absence of misconduct with other people who are not at issue in this case is not relevant."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016827.jpg
Quote #2
"did she see any of this activity, any of which she considered to be inappropriate activity"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016827.jpg
Quote #3
"if she had seen any of that activity, I doubt she would have been dating him"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016827.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,594 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 197 2639
LCHCmax3 Dubin - direct
LCHCmax3 Dubin - direct
1 what I allowed in overruling your motion to preclude is
2 timeframed. So you want the timeframe narrowed to the window
3 in which the witness testified that there was sexualized
4 massages with --
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, and limited to particular
6 individuals who are at issue in this case. It's not before the
7 jury whether Maxwell and Epstein committed misconduct with
8 other people, the question is whether she has relevant
9 knowledge about misconduct with the people who are at issue in
10 this case. The absence of misconduct with other people who are
11 not at issue in this case is not relevant.
12 THE COURT: I think you should narrow the timeframe in
13 which the witness testifies.
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: I can do that, your Honor.
15 Just so the record is clear, I don't believe this was
16 litigated at all pretrial. This witness was not questioned
17 about Ms. Maxwell or not being there, which were litigated
18 pretrial. This really is foundational to the next question,
19 which is going to be after she stopped dating him, which is
20 then into the relevant timeframe, did she see any of this
21 activity, any of which she considered to be inappropriate
22 activity. So that's actually the next question. So I'm moving
23 out of this into that. But it seems to me to be logically
24 relevant, your Honor, frankly because if she had seen any of
25 that activity, I doubt she would have been dating him or would
2 timeframed. So you want the timeframe narrowed to the window
3 in which the witness testified that there was sexualized
4 massages with --
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, and limited to particular
6 individuals who are at issue in this case. It's not before the
7 jury whether Maxwell and Epstein committed misconduct with
8 other people, the question is whether she has relevant
9 knowledge about misconduct with the people who are at issue in
10 this case. The absence of misconduct with other people who are
11 not at issue in this case is not relevant.
12 THE COURT: I think you should narrow the timeframe in
13 which the witness testifies.
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: I can do that, your Honor.
15 Just so the record is clear, I don't believe this was
16 litigated at all pretrial. This witness was not questioned
17 about Ms. Maxwell or not being there, which were litigated
18 pretrial. This really is foundational to the next question,
19 which is going to be after she stopped dating him, which is
20 then into the relevant timeframe, did she see any of this
21 activity, any of which she considered to be inappropriate
22 activity. So that's actually the next question. So I'm moving
23 out of this into that. But it seems to me to be logically
24 relevant, your Honor, frankly because if she had seen any of
25 that activity, I doubt she would have been dating him or would
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016827
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document