DOJ-OGR-00016486.jpg
601 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
601 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge is ruling on a defense request to call victims' attorneys (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) as witnesses during the defense's case-in-chief to establish bias or motive. Specifically, the text highlights an issue regarding whether Mr. Glassman told a victim named 'Jane' that cooperating with the prosecution would 'help her case,' while noting the complexities of attorney-client privilege.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Responding to the judge regarding a lunch break.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Providing guidance on the 'attorney witness issue' and ruling on defense requests.
|
| Jack Scarola | Attorney |
Attorney the defense wishes to call to testify.
|
| Brad Edwards | Attorney |
Attorney the defense wishes to call to testify.
|
| Robert Glassman | Attorney |
Attorney the defense wishes to call to testify; specifically regarding comments made to 'Jane'.
|
| Jane | Alleged Victim/Witness |
Subject of potential testimony regarding whether Glassman told her cooperating would help her case.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Implied by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Court filing date of the transcript document.
Southern District of New York (implied)
Unknown (Trial proceedings)
Court ruling on the 'attorney witness issue' regarding the defense case-in-chief.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
Discussion of Glassman's advice to Jane and attorney-client privilege issues.
Court states these men are 'attorneys for witnesses who testified'.
Court states these men are 'attorneys for witnesses who testified'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Next is the attorney witness issue. I am prepared to give guidance on that."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016486.jpg
Quote #1
"The defense argues that the testimony of the attorneys is relevant to show how and why the alleged victims cooperated with the prosecution"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016486.jpg
Quote #2
"whether he told Jane that cooperating would "help her case,""Source
DOJ-OGR-00016486.jpg
Quote #3
"the boundary to privileged communications can be easily crossed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016486.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,502 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 246 2298
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 lunch then.
2 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: I think this is an area ripe for narrowing
4 and stipulation when feasible.
5 Okay. Next is the attorney witness issue. I am
6 prepared to give guidance on that.
7 Okay. So I have the defense's letter to call
8 attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman to
9 testify during the defense case-in-chief. And I've looked
10 quite carefully at these arguments and proffers. Obviously
11 I've had the one related to Mr. Glassman the longest.
12 The defense argues that the testimony of the attorneys
13 is relevant to show how and why the alleged victims cooperated
14 with the prosecution in this case, which it argues is relevant
15 to motive to testify and bias. I think the government concedes
16 that, with the exception of Mr. Glassman's requested testimony
17 as to whether he told Jane that cooperating would "help her
18 case," other than that, I think the government agrees that the
19 proffered testimony is not -- at least as framed --
20 attorney-client privilege.
21 I still have to exercise caution in considering the
22 ability of defense to call these witnesses, since they are
23 attorneys for witnesses who testified, and the boundary to
24 privileged communications can be easily crossed. I do think as
25 a general matter, to the extent the defense has established
2 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: I think this is an area ripe for narrowing
4 and stipulation when feasible.
5 Okay. Next is the attorney witness issue. I am
6 prepared to give guidance on that.
7 Okay. So I have the defense's letter to call
8 attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman to
9 testify during the defense case-in-chief. And I've looked
10 quite carefully at these arguments and proffers. Obviously
11 I've had the one related to Mr. Glassman the longest.
12 The defense argues that the testimony of the attorneys
13 is relevant to show how and why the alleged victims cooperated
14 with the prosecution in this case, which it argues is relevant
15 to motive to testify and bias. I think the government concedes
16 that, with the exception of Mr. Glassman's requested testimony
17 as to whether he told Jane that cooperating would "help her
18 case," other than that, I think the government agrees that the
19 proffered testimony is not -- at least as framed --
20 attorney-client privilege.
21 I still have to exercise caution in considering the
22 ability of defense to call these witnesses, since they are
23 attorneys for witnesses who testified, and the boundary to
24 privileged communications can be easily crossed. I do think as
25 a general matter, to the extent the defense has established
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016486
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document