DOJ-OGR-00013283.jpg
584 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
584 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys discuss the potential recall of a witness named 'Jane' and whether she violated a sequestration order by communicating with her younger brother, who was also under subpoena. The Judge notes that while such communication is poor practice, no specific order barring witness communication had been entered.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney (Prosecution) |
Arguing that witness 'Jane' may have violated sequestration order by contacting her brother.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney (Defense) |
Arguing that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to prior consistent statements.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the arguments; states no specific order was in place prohibiting witness communication.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Subject of potential recall; alleged to have contacted her brother.
|
| Jane's younger brother | Witness (Subpoenaed) |
Under subpoena; alleged to have been contacted by Jane.
|
| Brian | Unknown (likely witness or attorney) |
Mentioned in 'government withdraw Brian'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Indicated by footer DOJ-OGR
|
|
| The Government |
Mentioned in relation to withdrawing 'Brian'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Filing of Document 755 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Southern District Court
Unknown (Trial date)
Court hearing regarding witness recall and sequestration violations.
Courtroom
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in testimony regarding whether the brother entered it.
|
|
|
Implied by court reporter name.
|
Relationships (2)
Referred to as 'her younger brother'
Argues on behalf of the government/subpoena
Key Quotes (3)
"If she's had contact with her younger brother, who is under our subpoena, that might be fair game, your Honor. In my mind, she's violated the sequestration order."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013283.jpg
Quote #1
"I didn't enter one directing witnesses not to speak to each other. It is certainly not a good practice for reasons that have become apparent."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013283.jpg
Quote #2
"I hypothesized whether someone giving him a transcript of the proceeding would be, if not a violation of the letter, a violation of the spirit."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013283.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,466 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 5 of 262 1710
LC8Cmax1
LC8Cmax1
1 about whether they're going to recall Jane. I just want to
2 make sure I'm understanding --
3 THE COURT: Sounds like that.
4 MS. MENNINGER: That's correct.
5 MR. ROHRBACH: -- defense's position.
6 So I guess we would just repeat, your Honor, that the
7 only issue for which Jane is subject to recall is the issue of
8 the prior consistent statement and not the broader question of
9 her contacts --
10 MS. MENNINGER: If she's had contact with her younger
11 brother, who is under our subpoena, that might be fair game,
12 your Honor. In my mind, she's violated the sequestration
13 order.
14 THE COURT: As I indicated yesterday, before the
15 government withdraw Brian, I thought that was unlikely to be my
16 conclusion. I don't have any different basis for coming to a
17 different conclusion, unless we learn something substantial,
18 but, again, there was no order in place, I don't think. I
19 didn't enter one directing witnesses not to speak to each
20 other. It is certainly not a good practice for reasons that
21 have become apparent. And he didn't come into the courtroom,
22 which is what the text of 6/15 indicates. I hypothesized
23 whether someone giving him a transcript of the proceeding would
24 be, if not a violation of the letter, a violation of the
25 spirit. There is no contention as to that.
2 make sure I'm understanding --
3 THE COURT: Sounds like that.
4 MS. MENNINGER: That's correct.
5 MR. ROHRBACH: -- defense's position.
6 So I guess we would just repeat, your Honor, that the
7 only issue for which Jane is subject to recall is the issue of
8 the prior consistent statement and not the broader question of
9 her contacts --
10 MS. MENNINGER: If she's had contact with her younger
11 brother, who is under our subpoena, that might be fair game,
12 your Honor. In my mind, she's violated the sequestration
13 order.
14 THE COURT: As I indicated yesterday, before the
15 government withdraw Brian, I thought that was unlikely to be my
16 conclusion. I don't have any different basis for coming to a
17 different conclusion, unless we learn something substantial,
18 but, again, there was no order in place, I don't think. I
19 didn't enter one directing witnesses not to speak to each
20 other. It is certainly not a good practice for reasons that
21 have become apparent. And he didn't come into the courtroom,
22 which is what the text of 6/15 indicates. I hypothesized
23 whether someone giving him a transcript of the proceeding would
24 be, if not a violation of the letter, a violation of the
25 spirit. There is no contention as to that.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013283
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document