DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript (criminal case)
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a sidebar or legal argument regarding witness 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that the witness may be motivated to testify in the criminal trial to increase a financial payout in a separate civil case. The Judge ('The Court') expresses concern that questioning the witness about communications with her lawyer regarding this strategy would violate attorney-client privilege and rules to limit the scope of questioning on 401/403 grounds.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness |
Witness under cross-examination; subject of discussion regarding motivation for testifying.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Defense Attorney |
Arguing regarding the relevance of the witness's motivation and civil case payout.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding judge ruling on the admissibility of questions regarding attorney-client privilege and relevance.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Indicated by footer stamp DOJ-OGR
|
|
| The Government |
Mentioned regarding their knowledge of the witness's civil case strategy.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction (likely SDNY) based on court reporter stamp.
|
Relationships (2)
Discussion of 'the person who's calling them to the stand' (the government).
Court mentions 'attorney-client privilege issues because it's about what her attorney communicated to her.'
Key Quotes (4)
"It's an issue of whether the witness is coming and testifying knowing that the person who's calling them to the stand is aware of this whole plan to get more money from the civil case by testifying here."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
Quote #1
"does she have in her mind that testifying might help her in the civil case. The answer to that is yes."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
Quote #2
"it seems to me it's potentially -- it's attorney-client privilege issues because it's about what her attorney communicated to her."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
Quote #3
"my inclination is not to allow the second question on both privilege, 401/403 grounds."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,651 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 159 of 264 570
LC1VMAX5 Jane - cross
LC1VMAX5 Jane - cross
1 money by testifying in the criminal case, that can affect, you
2 know, whether or not it's an appropriate -- you know, whether
3 the witness has an expectation that is somewhat colored by the
4 government's plan or putting them on the stand, you know,
5 knowing that. It's an issue of whether the witness is coming
6 and testifying knowing that the person who's calling them to
7 the stand is aware of this whole plan to get more money from
8 the civil case by testifying here.
9 THE COURT: What does that tell us at all about her
10 motivation? The two pieces aren't linking up. There's does
11 she have in her mind that testifying might help her in the
12 civil case. The answer to that is yes. I don't see -- it
13 seems to me it's potentially -- it's attorney-client privilege
14 issues because it's about what her attorney communicated to
15 her. And it's hard to see any additional relevance that comes
16 from whether the fact -- whether the government knew -- whether
17 she knew that the government knew that she believed that -- or
18 testifying would help her civil case, because it doesn't link
19 up to the benefit part.
20 So I think the first question would be fine. If the
21 answer is yes, my inclination is not to allow the second
22 question on both privilege, 401/403 grounds. So then the
23 question is if the answer is no, then what do you propose?
24 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, as with some of the other
25 issues in this case, if she says no, I think that there is
2 know, whether or not it's an appropriate -- you know, whether
3 the witness has an expectation that is somewhat colored by the
4 government's plan or putting them on the stand, you know,
5 knowing that. It's an issue of whether the witness is coming
6 and testifying knowing that the person who's calling them to
7 the stand is aware of this whole plan to get more money from
8 the civil case by testifying here.
9 THE COURT: What does that tell us at all about her
10 motivation? The two pieces aren't linking up. There's does
11 she have in her mind that testifying might help her in the
12 civil case. The answer to that is yes. I don't see -- it
13 seems to me it's potentially -- it's attorney-client privilege
14 issues because it's about what her attorney communicated to
15 her. And it's hard to see any additional relevance that comes
16 from whether the fact -- whether the government knew -- whether
17 she knew that the government knew that she believed that -- or
18 testifying would help her civil case, because it doesn't link
19 up to the benefit part.
20 So I think the first question would be fine. If the
21 answer is yes, my inclination is not to allow the second
22 question on both privilege, 401/403 grounds. So then the
23 question is if the answer is no, then what do you propose?
24 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, as with some of the other
25 issues in this case, if she says no, I think that there is
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017768
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017768
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document