This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney (Likely Prosecution) |
Arguing against the admissibility of internet printouts, Wikipedia pages, and tabloid articles as evidence.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, asking clarifying questions about the objection to internet materials.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney (Defense) |
Laura Menninger (implied); stating she is trying to provide materials in advance to speed up proceedings.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| Wikipedia |
Mentioned as an example of inadmissible evidence.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by 'Southern District Reporters' and case context.
|
"things like tabloid articles, Wikipedia pages, we don't think are appropriate as exhibits before the jury"Source
"what's the grounds for a blanket objection to internet material?"Source
"We mostly just wanted to give the Court a preview of those issues that we anticipate arising."Source
"I feel like I'm trying to give them stuff in advance so they can be prepared"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,367 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document