DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
584 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
584 KB
Summary
This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness |
Subject of discussion regarding recall to the stand and potential violation of sequestration order.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney (Prosecution) |
Argues that Jane may have violated sequestration order by contacting her brother.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney (Defense) |
Argues that the recall of Jane should be limited to the issue of 'prior consistent statement'.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the discussion regarding witness conduct and recall scope.
|
| Jane's younger brother | Witness (Subpoenaed) |
Under subpoena; allegedly had contact with Jane.
|
| Brian | Witness |
Mentioned as having been withdrawn by the government.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting firm listed in footer.
|
|
| Government |
Referenced by the Court ('before the government withdraw Brian').
|
|
| Defense |
Referenced by Mr. Rohrbach ('defense's position').
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied location of the transcript; specifically mentioned regarding 'he didn't come into the courtroom'.
|
Relationships (2)
Text refers to him as 'her younger brother'.
Context of arguments and opposing counsel (Rohrbach).
Key Quotes (5)
"the only issue for which Jane is subject to recall is the issue of the prior consistent statement"Source
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
Quote #1
"If she's had contact with her younger brother, who is under our subpoena, that might be fair game"Source
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
Quote #2
"In my mind, she's violated the sequestration order."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
Quote #3
"I didn't enter one directing witnesses not to speak to each other."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
Quote #4
"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-00018867.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,699 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-00018867
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document