DOJ-OGR-00013872.jpg
582 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
582 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for the admission of property records showing a specific property was owned by the 'O'Neills' until 1997, not Maxwell, to impeach testimony from a witness named Kate. The Judge counters that ownership does not equate to residence, noting testimony that Maxwell lived there starting in 1992 regardless of ownership status.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing for the admissibility of property ownership records to impeach a witness.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the argument, questioning the relevance of ownership vs. residence.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the testimony regarding residence and property ownership. Confers with counsel.
|
| Kate | Witness |
Her testimony is being challenged/impeached by the defense based on property dates.
|
| O'Neills | Property Owners |
Family that owned the property in question until 1997.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Footer information.
|
|
| The Government |
Referenced by Everdell and The Court regarding their ability to argue points to the jury.
|
|
| DOJ |
Referenced in document ID (DOJ-OGR-00013872).
|
Timeline (3 events)
1992
Ms. Maxwell allegedly began living at the property in question according to government testimony.
London property
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned by The Court: 'They don't rent places in London?'
|
|
|
Jurisdiction context from the court reporter line.
|
Relationships (2)
Transcript notes '(Counsel conferred with defendant)'
Everdell discusses impeaching 'what Kate is testifying to' regarding Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"Your Honor, the records show that the O'Neills owned that property until 1997, some family of the O'Neills, not Ms. Maxwell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013872.jpg
Quote #1
"The relevant question is residence. The government has testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she lived there beginning in 1992."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013872.jpg
Quote #2
"I think the solution to this problem -- and this would not be a mini trial -- is for us to be able to admit the records showing the ownership records."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013872.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,546 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 13 of 246 2308
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 impeachment as to when she lived there. What is the relevance
2 to when she owned it?
3 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the records show that the
4 O'Neills owned that property until 1997, some family of the
5 O'Neills, not Ms. Maxwell.
6 THE COURT: They don't rent places in London?
7 MR. EVERDELL: That's something that the government,
8 I'm sure, could argue to the jury. But this is extremely
9 relevant. We're equally able to argue to the jury that this
10 shows that she owned it, and what Kate is testifying to
11 couldn't have happened because --
12 THE COURT: Well, again, it shows ownership. I get
13 that. The relevant question is residence. The government has
14 testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she lived there beginning in
15 1992. What evidence do you have as to whether or not she lived
16 there prior to ownership?
17 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if I may have a moment.
18 THE COURT: You may.
19 (Counsel conferred with defendant)
20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think the solution to
21 this problem -- and this would not be a mini trial -- is for us
22 to be able to admit the records showing the ownership records.
23 And if the government wants to admit the testimony to be able
24 to argue the opposite point, then okay. But that's hardly a
25 mini trial. And then each side gets to argue their point.
2 to when she owned it?
3 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the records show that the
4 O'Neills owned that property until 1997, some family of the
5 O'Neills, not Ms. Maxwell.
6 THE COURT: They don't rent places in London?
7 MR. EVERDELL: That's something that the government,
8 I'm sure, could argue to the jury. But this is extremely
9 relevant. We're equally able to argue to the jury that this
10 shows that she owned it, and what Kate is testifying to
11 couldn't have happened because --
12 THE COURT: Well, again, it shows ownership. I get
13 that. The relevant question is residence. The government has
14 testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she lived there beginning in
15 1992. What evidence do you have as to whether or not she lived
16 there prior to ownership?
17 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if I may have a moment.
18 THE COURT: You may.
19 (Counsel conferred with defendant)
20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think the solution to
21 this problem -- and this would not be a mini trial -- is for us
22 to be able to admit the records showing the ownership records.
23 And if the government wants to admit the testimony to be able
24 to argue the opposite point, then okay. But that's hardly a
25 mini trial. And then each side gets to argue their point.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013872
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document