DOJ-OGR-00016772.jpg
602 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
602 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to revisit a ruling to allow the defense to call FBI case agents as witnesses to question their investigative thoroughness, arguing that 'Jane's testimony' made this a live issue. The Court pushes back, citing the Second Circuit case 'Saldarriaga' and maintaining that the government's investigative techniques do not prove the defendant's innocence.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding judge (implied Judge Alison J. Nathan based on case number AJN) ruling on defense motions regarding witness...
|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Defense counsel (Christian Everdell) arguing to revisit a ruling to call FBI agents as witnesses.
|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Referenced as 'Jane's testimony', which the defense claims made the issue of FBI investigation 'live' again.
|
| FBI Case Agents | Law Enforcement/Potential Witnesses |
The defense seeks to call them to ask about their investigation methods, subpoenas, and interviews.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FBI |
Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose agents the defense wishes to question.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Federal Court of Appeals, cited by the judge regarding the 'Saldarriaga' precedent.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, implied by the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceeding where the Defense attempts to revisit a ruling precluding them from calling FBI agents as witnesses.
Courtroom (likely SDNY)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on the court reporters and case number format.
|
Relationships (1)
Courtroom dialogue, Everdell addressing 'Your Honor'.
Key Quotes (3)
"the government's use or nonuse of certain investigative techniques does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of the charges."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016772.jpg
Quote #1
"I suppose words have meaning in the eyes of the beholder, but what you're suggesting is directly contrary to my ruling."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016772.jpg
Quote #2
"And because this issue became a live issue when we had Jane's testimony, I thought it appropriate to see if we could revisit this to see"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016772.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,523 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 43 of 197 2584
LCHVMAX2
LCHVMAX2
1 precluded.
2 THE COURT: I've relitigated so many issues in this
3 case, so I suppose this is just going out with the same
4 pattern. But I said in my ruling, in its brief, the defense
5 seeks to affirmatively -- and I'll quote from the brief --
6 "call FBI case agents as witnesses" to ask who they talked to,
7 what documents they subpoenaed, and when.
8 But as the Second Circuit explained in Saldarriaga,
9 the government's use or nonuse of certain investigative
10 techniques does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of
11 the charges. That's transcript at page 20. And I also said I
12 would permit the defense to cross-examine law enforcement
13 officers about the investigative steps that were taken if the
14 government puts the thoroughness of the investigation into
15 issue, as this too would be permissible impeachment on cross,
16 and they did not.
17 I suppose words have meaning in the eyes of the
18 beholder, but what you're suggesting is directly contrary to my
19 ruling.
20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did see that. I'm not
21 trying to be contrary. I just went back to the premise of your
22 ruling when I was looking at the transcript cites and the cases
23 that you cited as premise for your ruling. And because this
24 issue became a live issue when we had Jane's testimony, I
25 thought it appropriate to see if we could revisit this to see
2 THE COURT: I've relitigated so many issues in this
3 case, so I suppose this is just going out with the same
4 pattern. But I said in my ruling, in its brief, the defense
5 seeks to affirmatively -- and I'll quote from the brief --
6 "call FBI case agents as witnesses" to ask who they talked to,
7 what documents they subpoenaed, and when.
8 But as the Second Circuit explained in Saldarriaga,
9 the government's use or nonuse of certain investigative
10 techniques does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of
11 the charges. That's transcript at page 20. And I also said I
12 would permit the defense to cross-examine law enforcement
13 officers about the investigative steps that were taken if the
14 government puts the thoroughness of the investigation into
15 issue, as this too would be permissible impeachment on cross,
16 and they did not.
17 I suppose words have meaning in the eyes of the
18 beholder, but what you're suggesting is directly contrary to my
19 ruling.
20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did see that. I'm not
21 trying to be contrary. I just went back to the premise of your
22 ruling when I was looking at the transcript cites and the cases
23 that you cited as premise for your ruling. And because this
24 issue became a live issue when we had Jane's testimony, I
25 thought it appropriate to see if we could revisit this to see
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016772
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document