DOJ-OGR-00014478.jpg
586 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
586 KB
Summary
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the prosecution's closing argument regarding 'grooming-by-proxy' for Jeffrey Epstein; the Judge overrules this, clarifying that while experts couldn't testify to it, lawyers could argue it based on evidence. Prosecutor Ms. Moe then discusses Government Exhibit 52, arguing it demonstrates knowledge and intent because the listed individuals were obviously not 'real masseuses.'
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the 'grooming-by-proxy' argument discussed by counsel.
|
| Mr. Epstein | Associate of Defendant |
Mentioned as the person for whom Maxwell was allegedly grooming women.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Defense Attorney |
Objecting to the prosecution's closing arguments regarding grooming-by-proxy.
|
| Ms. Moe | Prosecutor (Government) |
Defending the government's use of Exhibit 52 and arguments regarding 'fake masseuses'.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Overruling the defense's objection and clarifying previous rulings on expert testimony.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in the footer.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution team referencing Exhibit 52.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceeding addressing objections to closing arguments in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
Courtroom (Likely SDNY)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the court reporter footer and case number format.
|
Relationships (2)
Discussion of Maxwell 'grooming these women for Mr. Epstein'.
Ms. Moe argues the exhibit proves the illegitimacy of the 'masseuses'.
Key Quotes (4)
"suggesting that somehow Ms. Maxwell was grooming these women for Mr. Epstein"Source
DOJ-OGR-00014478.jpg
Quote #1
"My precise conclusion was the expert couldn't testify to it; but, of course, counsel could make arguments along that regard from the facts in the evidence."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014478.jpg
Quote #2
"how it would be obvious, looking at a document, that none of this was legitimate, that they weren't real masseuses"Source
DOJ-OGR-00014478.jpg
Quote #3
"When we compare the numbers in Government Exhibit 52 against the message pads"Source
DOJ-OGR-00014478.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,449 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 257 2911
LCKVMAX4
LCKVMAX4
1 And then we go from there.
2 I also object to the use of what I thought the Court
3 prohibited, which was the grooming-by-proxy argument, which was
4 re-raised in closing argument, suggesting that somehow Ms.
5 Maxwell was grooming these women for Mr. Epstein, which I
6 thought had been precluded.
7 THE COURT: That's easy to overrule.
8 My precise conclusion was the expert couldn't testify
9 to it in part because -- well, not in part. The expert
10 couldn't testify to it; but, of course, counsel could make
11 arguments along that regard from the facts in the evidence.
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor.
13 Those are my remarks and requests about the closing.
14 THE COURT: Exhibit 52.
15 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
16 The government's arguments with respect to Government
17 Exhibit 52 were entirely consistent with the Court's ruling.
18 In particular, the arguments were about knowledge and intent,
19 how it would be obvious, looking at a document, that none of
20 this was legitimate, that they weren't real masseuses, things
21 like mom and dad, we have that effect. And when a document is
22 offered not for its truth, that is certainly a proper
23 inference.
24 When we compare the numbers in Government Exhibit 52
25 against the message pads, the language was the number here is
2 I also object to the use of what I thought the Court
3 prohibited, which was the grooming-by-proxy argument, which was
4 re-raised in closing argument, suggesting that somehow Ms.
5 Maxwell was grooming these women for Mr. Epstein, which I
6 thought had been precluded.
7 THE COURT: That's easy to overrule.
8 My precise conclusion was the expert couldn't testify
9 to it in part because -- well, not in part. The expert
10 couldn't testify to it; but, of course, counsel could make
11 arguments along that regard from the facts in the evidence.
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor.
13 Those are my remarks and requests about the closing.
14 THE COURT: Exhibit 52.
15 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
16 The government's arguments with respect to Government
17 Exhibit 52 were entirely consistent with the Court's ruling.
18 In particular, the arguments were about knowledge and intent,
19 how it would be obvious, looking at a document, that none of
20 this was legitimate, that they weren't real masseuses, things
21 like mom and dad, we have that effect. And when a document is
22 offered not for its truth, that is certainly a proper
23 inference.
24 When we compare the numbers in Government Exhibit 52
25 against the message pads, the language was the number here is
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014478
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document