DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
638 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
638 KB
Summary
A transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Judge that they should be allowed to suggest witnesses were manipulated by civil attorneys, citing a witness named 'Carolyn' whose detailed 2008 legal filings and depositions did not mention Ms. Maxwell, implying her involvement was fabricated later. The Court overrules the objection to this line of argumentation at the opening stage but asks for evidence that attorneys explicitly told witnesses what to say.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Sternheim | Attorney |
Mentioned in the header 'Opening - Ms. Sternheim', likely delivering the opening statement discussed.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the argument, ruling on an objection regarding the opening statement.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Defense Attorney |
Arguing that witnesses changed their stories to include Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Carolyn | Witness/Accuser |
Cited as an example of a witness whose 2008 testimony/complaints did not originally include Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; the subject of the trial and the person allegedly added to witness stories later.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in the footer.
|
|
| The Government |
Refers to the prosecution.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on the court reporter's name (SDNY).
|
Relationships (2)
Mr. Pagliuca is arguing on behalf of the defense to discredit witnesses against Ms. Maxwell.
Carolyn is a witness whose prior testimony is being scrutinized for not originally including Ms. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (4)
"That certainly couldn't be a good-faith basis to suggest to this jury that there will be evidence... that these were more manipulated by their attorneys who cultivated their specific stories told to the government."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
Quote #1
"I'm going to overrule it at the opening stage."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
Quote #2
"What evidence are you going to put in that shows the attorneys told the witnesses what to say?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
Quote #3
"We have in 2008 -- I'll use Carolyn as the example -- answers to interrogatories that are detailed that do not include Ms. Maxwell; deposition testimony that is detailed but does not include Ms. Maxwell"Source
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,641 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 741 Filed 08/10/22 Page 57 of 106 61
LBTVMAX3 Opening - Ms. Sternheim
LBTVMAX3 Opening - Ms. Sternheim
1 topics to ask the client about. That certainly couldn't be a
2 good-faith basis to suggest to this jury that there will be
3 evidence before them at this trial; that these were more
4 manipulated by their attorneys who cultivated their specific
5 stories told to the government. We think that's inappropriate,
6 your Honor.
7 THE COURT: I'm going to overrule it at the opening
8 stage. I did not preclude the line of argumentation; I wasn't
9 asked to preclude the line of argumentation. You raised the
10 prospect -- you did certainly and I appreciate it, raise the
11 prospect related to a subpoena of a witness's attorney, which I
12 agree with the government is entirely unclear to me how that
13 would be able -- but if the proffers that it's based on
14 existing nonprivileged information from which the jury could
15 infer that these attorneys structured in some way the questions
16 that were asked, I think the line is I don't think you have any
17 basis to say that the attorneys told the witnesses what to say.
18 What evidence are you going to put in that shows the
19 attorneys told the witnesses what to say?
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, so we back up a little bit, your
21 Honor. We have in 2008 -- I'll use Carolyn as the example --
22 answers to interrogatories that are detailed that do not
23 include Ms. Maxwell; deposition testimony that is detailed but
24 does not include Ms. Maxwell; a 91-page complaint detailed, but
25 does not include Ms. Maxwell.
2 good-faith basis to suggest to this jury that there will be
3 evidence before them at this trial; that these were more
4 manipulated by their attorneys who cultivated their specific
5 stories told to the government. We think that's inappropriate,
6 your Honor.
7 THE COURT: I'm going to overrule it at the opening
8 stage. I did not preclude the line of argumentation; I wasn't
9 asked to preclude the line of argumentation. You raised the
10 prospect -- you did certainly and I appreciate it, raise the
11 prospect related to a subpoena of a witness's attorney, which I
12 agree with the government is entirely unclear to me how that
13 would be able -- but if the proffers that it's based on
14 existing nonprivileged information from which the jury could
15 infer that these attorneys structured in some way the questions
16 that were asked, I think the line is I don't think you have any
17 basis to say that the attorneys told the witnesses what to say.
18 What evidence are you going to put in that shows the
19 attorneys told the witnesses what to say?
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, so we back up a little bit, your
21 Honor. We have in 2008 -- I'll use Carolyn as the example --
22 answers to interrogatories that are detailed that do not
23 include Ms. Maxwell; deposition testimony that is detailed but
24 does not include Ms. Maxwell; a 91-page complaint detailed, but
25 does not include Ms. Maxwell.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011722
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document