DOJ-OGR-00016219.jpg
591 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
591 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admission of 'Exhibit 52.' The defense (Pagliuca) argues that only photocopies of specific pages, not the entire exhibit, were intended for the jury, while the full exhibit should be preserved for appellate purposes.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney (likely Prosecution/Government) |
Confirming movement of exhibits to the judge.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Attorney (Defense Counsel) |
Raising an objection/clarification regarding what specific documents (Exhibit 52) are shown to the jury versus kept f...
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the discussion regarding exhibit admissibility.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| The Government |
Referenced by Mr. Pagliuca regarding their offer of Exhibit 52.
|
|
| DOJ |
Indicated in footer DOJ-OGR stamp.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceeding regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY) based on reporter name and case number format.
|
Relationships (1)
Pagliuca is clarifying/limiting the scope of the government's exhibit admission.
Key Quotes (2)
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,489 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 267 2030
LCACmax1
LCACmax1
1 copies on the subset of exhibits by letter, and you'll move
2 those, as well.
3 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
4 MR. PAGLIUCA: I guess my question, your Honor, is
5 what's going --
6 THE COURT: Hang on a second.
7 MR. PAGLIUCA: -- to the jury is really the question.
8 My belief, when we address this with the witness, was the
9 government was not offering the entirety of 52, the government
10 was offering the photocopies of the various pages, and that was
11 the exhibit that was being admitted to the jury, and that's, I
12 think, a significant distinction here.
13 THE COURT: So you're opposing movement of the --
14 obviously, you've objected. To any event, I've overruled, but
15 even after that, you have an objection to moving the whole
16 thing to the jury or you just think it's inconsistent with how
17 it's been discussed or I suppose inconsistent with how it was
18 discussed at the time it was moved?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. We had this colloquy. The
20 government simply moved to admit the -- I think it's five
21 pages. That was the extent of the admission. My suggestion,
22 because we were dealing with the foundation issues, was that we
23 would have that exhibit, we would agree to the copies being
24 admitted per the government's request, but I wanted the actual
25 exhibit as part of the record for any necessary appellate
2 those, as well.
3 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
4 MR. PAGLIUCA: I guess my question, your Honor, is
5 what's going --
6 THE COURT: Hang on a second.
7 MR. PAGLIUCA: -- to the jury is really the question.
8 My belief, when we address this with the witness, was the
9 government was not offering the entirety of 52, the government
10 was offering the photocopies of the various pages, and that was
11 the exhibit that was being admitted to the jury, and that's, I
12 think, a significant distinction here.
13 THE COURT: So you're opposing movement of the --
14 obviously, you've objected. To any event, I've overruled, but
15 even after that, you have an objection to moving the whole
16 thing to the jury or you just think it's inconsistent with how
17 it's been discussed or I suppose inconsistent with how it was
18 discussed at the time it was moved?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. We had this colloquy. The
20 government simply moved to admit the -- I think it's five
21 pages. That was the extent of the admission. My suggestion,
22 because we were dealing with the foundation issues, was that we
23 would have that exhibit, we would agree to the copies being
24 admitted per the government's request, but I wanted the actual
25 exhibit as part of the record for any necessary appellate
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016219
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document