DOJ-OGR-00016751.jpg
589 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal ruling
File Size:
589 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text records a judge providing legal guidance regarding the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements and extrinsic evidence under Rule 613(b). The judge cites specific case law (Almonte, Leonardi) to explain that law enforcement notes generally do not prove inconsistency unless the witness subscribed to them or the interviewing officer is called as a witness.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge (Implied) |
The speaker providing guidance ('I provide the following guidance'). Case ID AJN confirms Judge Nathan.
|
| Almonte | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Almonte
|
| Leonardi | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Leonardi
|
| Gulani | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited as 'the Gulani case'
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in footer
|
|
| Fifth Circuit Court |
Cited legal authority
|
|
| Sixth Circuit Court |
Cited legal authority
|
|
| Tenth Circuit Court |
Cited legal authority
|
|
| Second Circuit Court (2d Cir.) |
Cited legal authority
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR
|
Timeline (1 events)
August 10, 2022
Filing of Document 763 in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Southern District of New York
Judge
Counsel
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by case number and court reporters
|
Relationships (1)
Defense
→
Legal Adversaries
→
Government
Mentioned as 'the parties' agreeing on legal points in letters.
Key Quotes (3)
"extrinsic evidence is inappropriate, and the parties apparently agree on this point"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016751.jpg
Quote #1
"notes taken in law enforcement interviews will generally not prove an inconsistency for purposes of rule 613(b)"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016751.jpg
Quote #2
"Where the defense relies on a third party's characterization of the witness's words rather than a verbatim transcript, then the witness must have subscribed to that characterization."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016751.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,477 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 197 2563
LCFCmax1
LCFCmax1
1 explain or deny it.
2 Next at issue is the first step of whether the
3 witness's testimony and the prior statement are inconsistent.
4 I provide the following guidance before we turn to the
5 specifics.
6 First, if the statement was presented to the witness
7 and the witness admitted to making the statement, then
8 extrinsic evidence is inappropriate, and the parties apparently
9 agree on this point in their last two letters as do circuit
10 courts who have decided the issue. That's true for the Fifth
11 Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.
12 Second, the prior inconsistent statement must actually
13 be the witness's statement to show an inconsistency. United
14 States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, (2d Cir. 1992).
15 Where the defense relies on a third party's
16 characterization of the witness's words rather than a verbatim
17 transcript, then the witness must have subscribed to that
18 characterization. On that basis, notes taken in law
19 enforcement interviews will generally not prove an
20 inconsistency for purposes of rule 613(b). See, for example,
21 United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, the Gulani case and
22 others.
23 Of course, that infirmity is solved by calling the
24 interviewing officer as a witness or to avoid calling another
25 witness, the government stipulates to the accuracy of the
2 Next at issue is the first step of whether the
3 witness's testimony and the prior statement are inconsistent.
4 I provide the following guidance before we turn to the
5 specifics.
6 First, if the statement was presented to the witness
7 and the witness admitted to making the statement, then
8 extrinsic evidence is inappropriate, and the parties apparently
9 agree on this point in their last two letters as do circuit
10 courts who have decided the issue. That's true for the Fifth
11 Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.
12 Second, the prior inconsistent statement must actually
13 be the witness's statement to show an inconsistency. United
14 States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, (2d Cir. 1992).
15 Where the defense relies on a third party's
16 characterization of the witness's words rather than a verbatim
17 transcript, then the witness must have subscribed to that
18 characterization. On that basis, notes taken in law
19 enforcement interviews will generally not prove an
20 inconsistency for purposes of rule 613(b). See, for example,
21 United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, the Gulani case and
22 others.
23 Of course, that infirmity is solved by calling the
24 interviewing officer as a witness or to avoid calling another
25 witness, the government stipulates to the accuracy of the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016751
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document