DOJ-OGR-00013552.jpg
601 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
601 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details an argument between an attorney identified as Ms. Moe and the Judge regarding the use of a 'summary witness' under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006. The Judge criticizes the prosecution's strategy, suggesting the witness is being used to present a 'mini closing argument' rather than a factual summary of complex records.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney (Prosecution) |
Arguing for the admissibility of a summary witness.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Questioning the validity of the prosecution's summary witness under Rule 1006.
|
| Unnamed Summary Witness | Witness |
Subject of the legal debate; described as having no personal involvement in the investigation.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by reporter name (likely SDNY given the case number context).
|
Key Quotes (4)
"The purpose here isn't to have the summary witness talk through the investigation or investigative steps, but to talk about a review of exhibits."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013552.jpg
Quote #1
"you're providing essentially a closing argument or mini closing argument via a witness who has no personal involvement in the investigation"Source
DOJ-OGR-00013552.jpg
Quote #2
"So you've created, I think, a little bit of a hybrid"Source
DOJ-OGR-00013552.jpg
Quote #3
"But I can't say I've ever seen a version like this."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013552.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,539 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 757 Filed 08/10/22 Page 11 of 49 1984
LC9VMAXT
LC9VMAXT
1 closing.
2 MS. MOE: Your Honor, we often call summary witnesses
3 who are not involved in the investigation who are just talking
4 about their analysis of records. The purpose here isn't to
5 have the summary witness talk through the investigation or
6 investigative steps, but to talk about a review of exhibits.
7 And I have called agents to do just that.
8 THE COURT: But for the purposes of doing what 1006
9 permits, that's not what this is. I've seen it in two
10 contexts: One, 1006 you've got a complicated, extensive set of
11 records that are being summarized via a witness. And then
12 you've got investigative summary witnesses who talk through
13 factually what they did in a sense. And you're not doing
14 either of those; you're providing essentially a closing
15 argument or mini closing argument via a witness who has no
16 personal involvement in the investigation and doing so, sounds
17 like, with materials that don't require the type of 1006
18 summary.
19 So you've created, I think, a little bit of a hybrid
20 of certainly what I've seen those two exemplars, for them to be
21 used. And so it just does sound like argument, summation, and
22 the kind of thing that -- I mean, it's certainly true you could
23 have done it with the witnesses. At some point I might have
24 said, Save it for summation, counsel. But I can't say I've
25 ever seen a version like this.
2 MS. MOE: Your Honor, we often call summary witnesses
3 who are not involved in the investigation who are just talking
4 about their analysis of records. The purpose here isn't to
5 have the summary witness talk through the investigation or
6 investigative steps, but to talk about a review of exhibits.
7 And I have called agents to do just that.
8 THE COURT: But for the purposes of doing what 1006
9 permits, that's not what this is. I've seen it in two
10 contexts: One, 1006 you've got a complicated, extensive set of
11 records that are being summarized via a witness. And then
12 you've got investigative summary witnesses who talk through
13 factually what they did in a sense. And you're not doing
14 either of those; you're providing essentially a closing
15 argument or mini closing argument via a witness who has no
16 personal involvement in the investigation and doing so, sounds
17 like, with materials that don't require the type of 1006
18 summary.
19 So you've created, I think, a little bit of a hybrid
20 of certainly what I've seen those two exemplars, for them to be
21 used. And so it just does sound like argument, summation, and
22 the kind of thing that -- I mean, it's certainly true you could
23 have done it with the witnesses. At some point I might have
24 said, Save it for summation, counsel. But I can't say I've
25 ever seen a version like this.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013552
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document