DOJ-OGR-00009485.jpg
479 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal transcript (court proceedings)
File Size:
479 KB
Summary
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The dialogue involves 'The Court' and attorney Mr. Shechtman discussing the conduct of lawyers named Brune and Richard. The debate centers on whether the lawyers' 'lack of candor' was due to carelessness or a strategic decision to 'game the system' and conceal information from the court.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Shechtman | Attorney/Speaker |
Arguing before the court regarding the conduct of other lawyers and the interpretation of evidence.
|
| The Court | Judge/Presiding Officer |
Questioning Mr. Shechtman about whether 'Brune & Richard's' lack of candor implies a strategic decision to conceal in...
|
| Brune | Lawyer (Subject of discussion) |
Accused by the Court of 'lack of candor' and potentially making a strategic decision to conceal information.
|
| Richard | Lawyer (Subject of discussion) |
Accused by the Court of 'lack of candor' alongside Brune.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Transcription service provider listed in the footer.
|
|
| The Court |
The judicial body hearing the case (Southern District of New York implied by reporters).
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Information Services (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Unknown (Hearing Date)
Court hearing discussing attorney misconduct and potential retrial.
Courtroom
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
New York (implied by Southern District Reporters and Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
|
|
|
Mentioned at the very end of the transcript text, possibly referring to a specific location relevant to the case facts.
|
Relationships (2)
Dialogue in transcript.
Key Quotes (3)
"why shouldn't this Court view Brune & Richard's lack of candor with the Court in making their motion as circumstantial evidence that they were in fact trying to conceal from the Court a strategic decision they made?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009485.jpg
Quote #1
"they walked away that night and really left the Court in an untenable position such that at least two, and I hope three, defendants may be on trial again in the spring."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009485.jpg
Quote #2
"Or do you go back and say these are people who made a strategic decision to game the system at an earlier time."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009485.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,810 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 166-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 66 of 117
A-5909
A-5909
7
CAC3PARC
1 should have done as lawyers. And then after that, I've always
2 thought, partly because they dropped the ball, they were less
3 than candid in what they said to the Court going forward.
4 THE COURT: That last point is really another part of
5 the analysis, isn't it, that, why shouldn't this Court view
6 Brune & Richard's lack of candor with the Court in making their
7 motion as circumstantial evidence that they were in fact trying
8 to conceal from the Court a strategic decision they made?
9 MR. SHECHTMAN: Look, I think, and the Court does in
10 its opinion consider it as circumstantial evidence and it's not
11 a pretty picture. But the question to me has always been what
12 is it circumstantial evidence of? And I think it is
13 circumstantial evidence of a realization that they had a
14 responsibility to tell the Court, and they walked away that
15 night and really left the Court in an untenable position such
16 that at least two, and I hope three, defendants may be on trial
17 again in the spring.
18 So, I don't have any doubt that you can take that
19 conduct and look back. The question is, do you look back and
20 say to yourself, these are people who knew they dropped the
21 ball and were careless and inattentive and didn't fulfill their
22 obligations to the Court? Or do you go back and say these are
23 people who made a strategic decision to game the system at an
24 earlier time. I don't think there is any evidence to support
25 that. As I've said before, there is nothing in that plaza
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
CAC3PARC
1 should have done as lawyers. And then after that, I've always
2 thought, partly because they dropped the ball, they were less
3 than candid in what they said to the Court going forward.
4 THE COURT: That last point is really another part of
5 the analysis, isn't it, that, why shouldn't this Court view
6 Brune & Richard's lack of candor with the Court in making their
7 motion as circumstantial evidence that they were in fact trying
8 to conceal from the Court a strategic decision they made?
9 MR. SHECHTMAN: Look, I think, and the Court does in
10 its opinion consider it as circumstantial evidence and it's not
11 a pretty picture. But the question to me has always been what
12 is it circumstantial evidence of? And I think it is
13 circumstantial evidence of a realization that they had a
14 responsibility to tell the Court, and they walked away that
15 night and really left the Court in an untenable position such
16 that at least two, and I hope three, defendants may be on trial
17 again in the spring.
18 So, I don't have any doubt that you can take that
19 conduct and look back. The question is, do you look back and
20 say to yourself, these are people who knew they dropped the
21 ball and were careless and inattentive and didn't fulfill their
22 obligations to the Court? Or do you go back and say these are
23 people who made a strategic decision to game the system at an
24 earlier time. I don't think there is any evidence to support
25 that. As I've said before, there is nothing in that plaza
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009485
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document