DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
541 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
541 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the trial, discussing Rule 16/608 and witness privacy.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Defense Counsel |
Addressed by the court regarding the Rule 16 issue.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Counsel |
Identified by Ms. Menninger as the attorney handling the Rule 16 piece.
|
| Ms. Comey | Prosecutor |
Addressed by the court regarding who is handling the argument.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Prosecutor |
Responds to the court that he is taking the argument instead of Ms. Comey.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Trial resumption without jury present to discuss procedural matters regarding Rule 16/608 and witness pseudonyms.
Courtroom (Southern District of New York)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by 'Southern District Reporters' and case number format.
|
Relationships (2)
Menninger defers the argument to Everdell.
Court asks Comey if she is taking the argument; Rohrbach responds he is taking it.
Key Quotes (3)
"personal identifying information of witnesses who I've given permission to testify under pseudonyms to protect their privacy."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
Quote #1
"if we are talking by impeachment by contradiction... it's not required to be disclosed as case-in-chief material under Rule 16"Source
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
Quote #2
"So the question is whether it's impeachment or not."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,315 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 264 408
LC1VMAX1
LC1VMAX1
1 (Trial resumed; jury not present)
2 THE COURT: All right. Matters to take up, counsel,
3 includes the Rule 16/608, as I see it, issue. And then I want
4 to see where you are in terms of working out anticipated
5 personal identifying information of witnesses who I've given
6 permission to testify under pseudonyms to protect their
7 privacy.
8 So let's begin.
9 Ms. Menninger, did you want to begin with the Rule 16
10 issue?
11 MS. MENNINGER: I think Mr. Everdell was going to
12 handle that piece.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 Ms. Comey, are you taking this?
15 MR. ROHRBACH: I'm taking this one, your Honor.
16 THE COURT: You all swapped off.
17 So I think the defense is clearly right that if we are
18 talking by impeachment by contradiction, that is to say,
19 impeachment, direct contradiction of something testified to on
20 the stand, it's not required to be disclosed as case-in-chief
21 material under Rule 16; and depending on what it is, it's
22 likely not 608 because it's impeachment by contradiction, not
23 impeachment to show -- extrinsic evidence to show a character
24 for dishonesty and the like.
25 So the question is whether it's impeachment or not.
2 THE COURT: All right. Matters to take up, counsel,
3 includes the Rule 16/608, as I see it, issue. And then I want
4 to see where you are in terms of working out anticipated
5 personal identifying information of witnesses who I've given
6 permission to testify under pseudonyms to protect their
7 privacy.
8 So let's begin.
9 Ms. Menninger, did you want to begin with the Rule 16
10 issue?
11 MS. MENNINGER: I think Mr. Everdell was going to
12 handle that piece.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 Ms. Comey, are you taking this?
15 MR. ROHRBACH: I'm taking this one, your Honor.
16 THE COURT: You all swapped off.
17 So I think the defense is clearly right that if we are
18 talking by impeachment by contradiction, that is to say,
19 impeachment, direct contradiction of something testified to on
20 the stand, it's not required to be disclosed as case-in-chief
21 material under Rule 16; and depending on what it is, it's
22 likely not 608 because it's impeachment by contradiction, not
23 impeachment to show -- extrinsic evidence to show a character
24 for dishonesty and the like.
25 So the question is whether it's impeachment or not.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017611
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document