DOJ-OGR-00016220.jpg
583 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
583 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding 'Exhibit 52' (identified as a book). The defense argues against providing the full book to the jury due to limited cross-examination and relevance, while the prosecution argues the physical object is necessary for the jury to evaluate its authenticity.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the discussion regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Defense Attorney |
Arguing against the admission of the entirety of Exhibit 52 to the jury, citing lack of cross-examination and relevance.
|
| Ms. Moe | Prosecutor (Government) |
Arguing that the full exhibit is necessary for jurors to evaluate its authenticity and weight.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in the footer.
|
|
| The Government |
Referenced by Mr. Pagliuca regarding their contentions on relevance.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Date of Trial Proceeding)
Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the reporter's name (Southern District of New York).
|
Relationships (1)
Pagliuca represents the defense arguing against the exhibit; Moe represents the government arguing for it.
Key Quotes (4)
"Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of 52?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016220.jpg
Quote #1
"Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52, because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being admitted."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016220.jpg
Quote #2
"So the book is however many pages it is, but I think it's outside of what was appropriate for cross examination at the time."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016220.jpg
Quote #3
"because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would evaluate the testimony about its contents... without the object itself."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016220.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,471 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 267 2031
LCACmax1
LCACmax1
1 issues. And that's how I understood this was being addressed.
2 THE COURT: Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for
3 the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of
4 52?
5 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there are a couple of problems.
6 Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52,
7 because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being
8 admitted. So I think that's problem number 1.
9 There are also problems, I think, simply with
10 relevance related to the rest of the exhibit, and there were
11 discrete portions that the government said the government was
12 contending were relevant and not the other portions. So the
13 book is however many pages it is, but I think it's outside of
14 what was appropriate for cross examination at the time.
15 THE COURT: My clerk is sending me the portion of the
16 transcript.
17 I can't tell if you're in disagreement yet or not,
18 Ms. Moe.
19 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think the issue is more
20 that because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has
21 now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would
22 evaluate the testimony about its contents, the format, in order
23 to evaluate its authenticity or weight without the object
24 itself. That's what we wanted to clarify about whether that
25 would be part of the record.
2 THE COURT: Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for
3 the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of
4 52?
5 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there are a couple of problems.
6 Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52,
7 because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being
8 admitted. So I think that's problem number 1.
9 There are also problems, I think, simply with
10 relevance related to the rest of the exhibit, and there were
11 discrete portions that the government said the government was
12 contending were relevant and not the other portions. So the
13 book is however many pages it is, but I think it's outside of
14 what was appropriate for cross examination at the time.
15 THE COURT: My clerk is sending me the portion of the
16 transcript.
17 I can't tell if you're in disagreement yet or not,
18 Ms. Moe.
19 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think the issue is more
20 that because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has
21 now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would
22 evaluate the testimony about its contents, the format, in order
23 to evaluate its authenticity or weight without the object
24 itself. That's what we wanted to clarify about whether that
25 would be part of the record.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016220
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document