DOJ-OGR-00022010.jpg
633 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
633 KB
Summary
A transcript page from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Noel et al.) filed on February 10, 2020. Government prosecutor Ms. Lonergan argues against a six-month adjournment, stating the trial focuses on a specific '14-hour period' at the MCC and is not complex. She notes that witness statements (3500 material) were provided unusually early to the defense.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Lonergan | Government Prosecutor |
Addressing the court regarding adjournment and discovery; arguing that the case is narrow in scope.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing; asks to hear from the government.
|
| Defense Counsel | Attorney |
Mentioned by Lonergan as having made requests and arguments regarding adjournment.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution team in the case.
|
|
| MCC |
Metropolitan Correctional Center; location of the incident and subject of 'working conditions' arguments.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (14-hour period)
The specific incident occurring over a 14-hour period that is the subject of the indictment.
MCC
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Metropolitan Correctional Center; the prison where the 14-hour incident occurred.
|
|
|
Likely SDNY (Southern District of New York), implied by the reporter's name and case context.
|
Relationships (1)
Lonergan arguing against the defense's request for a six-month adjournment.
Key Quotes (4)
"I want to focus the court on the facts that are going to be at issue in this trial occurred over a 14-hour period."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022010.jpg
Quote #1
"A much larger investigation about, for example, the working conditions at the MCC, it is just not relevant to what is going to be the issues on trial here."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022010.jpg
Quote #2
"we have provided witness statements with our initial discovery almost four months in advance of trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022010.jpg
Quote #3
"we typically provide what we call 3500 material much closer to trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022010.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,649 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 26 Filed 02/10/20 Page 7 of 15 7
klu2NoeC kjc
klu2NoeC kjc
1 THE COURT: I will hear from the government.
2 MS. LONERGAN: Yes, your Honor. As we put in our
3 written submission to the court, we agree that a brief
4 adjournment is appropriate, but we do not think that a
5 six-month adjournment is necessary or warranted.
6 First, the amount of discovery in this case is not
7 particularly voluminous nor complex in light of the cases tried
8 in this district; and, in addition, the further investigation,
9 I want to focus the court on the facts that are going to be at
10 issue in this trial occurred over a 14-hour period. It is true
11 that, as part of our discovery, we provided information outside
12 of that 14-hour period, anticipating many of the types of
13 requests that the defense counsel has already begun to make.
14 But again, your Honor, this is a very focused, single-incident
15 indictment that is about what happened over the period of 14
16 hours. A much larger investigation about, for example, the
17 working conditions at the MCC, it is just not relevant to what
18 is going to be the issues on trial here.
19 I want to also touch on something that plaintiff said
20 about the need to interview witnesses. As we explained to the
21 court, we have done something that's unusual here, which is
22 that we have provided witness statements with our initial
23 discovery almost four months in advance of trial. As the court
24 is aware, we typically provide what we call 3500 material much
25 closer to trial. So the need to review those witness
2 MS. LONERGAN: Yes, your Honor. As we put in our
3 written submission to the court, we agree that a brief
4 adjournment is appropriate, but we do not think that a
5 six-month adjournment is necessary or warranted.
6 First, the amount of discovery in this case is not
7 particularly voluminous nor complex in light of the cases tried
8 in this district; and, in addition, the further investigation,
9 I want to focus the court on the facts that are going to be at
10 issue in this trial occurred over a 14-hour period. It is true
11 that, as part of our discovery, we provided information outside
12 of that 14-hour period, anticipating many of the types of
13 requests that the defense counsel has already begun to make.
14 But again, your Honor, this is a very focused, single-incident
15 indictment that is about what happened over the period of 14
16 hours. A much larger investigation about, for example, the
17 working conditions at the MCC, it is just not relevant to what
18 is going to be the issues on trial here.
19 I want to also touch on something that plaintiff said
20 about the need to interview witnesses. As we explained to the
21 court, we have done something that's unusual here, which is
22 that we have provided witness statements with our initial
23 discovery almost four months in advance of trial. As the court
24 is aware, we typically provide what we call 3500 material much
25 closer to trial. So the need to review those witness
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00022010
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document