DOJ-OGR-00013170.jpg
616 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
616 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge and attorneys (Menninger and Rohrbach) are discussing the admissibility of testimony and potential violations of witness sequestration (witnesses speaking to each other). The Judge indicates he is unlikely to exclude testimony unless there was a 'knowing and full violation,' preferring to let the issue be handled during cross-examination.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Name appears in the header 'Carolyn - cross', indicating she is the witness subject to cross-examination.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Referenced in line 4 regarding 'Jane's testimony'.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, agreeing with the Court.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing legal precedent regarding witness sequestration.
|
| Judge Engelmayer | Judge |
Referenced in relation to a legal decision in the 'Teman' case.
|
| The Court | Judge |
The presiding judge speaking on the record regarding rulings on witness sequestration.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting firm listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, implied by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceedings regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Courtroom (Southern District)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied location of the court based on the reporter's name (Southern District of New York).
|
Key Quotes (3)
"my quick look at the case law is that I'm very unlikely to exclude, unless there was some knowing and full violation of the sequestration spirit"Source
DOJ-OGR-00013170.jpg
Quote #1
"There was no order in place for witnesses not to speak."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013170.jpg
Quote #2
"if witnesses speak to each other, that's going to come out on cross, and boy is that going to look bad for the witnesses."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013170.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,593 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 157 of 264 1583
LC7VMAX5 Carolyn - cross
LC7VMAX5 Carolyn - cross
1 that, my quick look at the case law is that I'm very unlikely
2 to exclude, unless there was some knowing and full violation of
3 the sequestration spirit, if details of -- significant details
4 of Jane's testimony. But in the absence of that, I think what
5 we have is ripe grounds for cross-examination with an
6 opportunity for the defense to have at it.
7 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor.
8 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor I looked at some recent
9 case law, and I imagine your Honor has seen similar cases. But
10 one was Judge Engelmayer's decision in Teman. And there are
11 some significant reasons why this case is much different than
12 the decision he reached in that case, including the fact that
13 that was a conversation between the government and a witness
14 rather than -- he distinguished the other cases, which were a
15 witness speaking to another witness.
16 THE COURT: There was no order in place for witnesses
17 not to speak. It could have been requested, I suppose. It
18 wasn't requested. I didn't put one in place. I never have.
19 And the reason is because if witnesses speak to each other,
20 that's going to come out on cross, and boy is that going to
21 look bad for the witnesses.
22 So I think that's probably where we are. I have
23 looked at Teman. I looked at the rule. We'll keep looking at
24 cases once we have the full factual record.
25 But it seems to me we're likely to be at a point where
2 to exclude, unless there was some knowing and full violation of
3 the sequestration spirit, if details of -- significant details
4 of Jane's testimony. But in the absence of that, I think what
5 we have is ripe grounds for cross-examination with an
6 opportunity for the defense to have at it.
7 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor.
8 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor I looked at some recent
9 case law, and I imagine your Honor has seen similar cases. But
10 one was Judge Engelmayer's decision in Teman. And there are
11 some significant reasons why this case is much different than
12 the decision he reached in that case, including the fact that
13 that was a conversation between the government and a witness
14 rather than -- he distinguished the other cases, which were a
15 witness speaking to another witness.
16 THE COURT: There was no order in place for witnesses
17 not to speak. It could have been requested, I suppose. It
18 wasn't requested. I didn't put one in place. I never have.
19 And the reason is because if witnesses speak to each other,
20 that's going to come out on cross, and boy is that going to
21 look bad for the witnesses.
22 So I think that's probably where we are. I have
23 looked at Teman. I looked at the rule. We'll keep looking at
24 cases once we have the full factual record.
25 But it seems to me we're likely to be at a point where
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013170
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document