DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg
555 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
555 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the admissibility of evidence—specifically an email—under the doctrine of 'past recollection recorded.' The Judge questions what specific details the witness failed to recall that would necessitate admitting the prior record.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Sternheim | Defense Attorney |
Arguing regarding the admissibility of evidence and 'past recollection recorded'.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, questioning the defense's rationale for admitting evidence.
|
| Ms. Pomerantz | Prosecutor (implied) |
Referenced by the Court regarding an argument she made about the witness's recall.
|
| Unnamed Witness | Witness |
Female witness whose testimony and memory recall are the subject of the legal debate.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Referenced in footer stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court hearing regarding evidentiary rulings in Case 1:20-cr-00330.
Southern District of New York Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by 'Southern District Reporters' and case number format.
|
Relationships (2)
Dialogue in transcript.
Court references Pomerantz's argument.
Key Quotes (3)
"Past recollection recorded does not have to be inconsistent."Source
DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg
Quote #1
"what is it that the witness could not recall well enough to testify fully and accurately?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg
Quote #2
"the implied discrepancy was whether pictures were actually sent, but the email doesn't go to that"Source
DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,373 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 261 1287
LC6VMAX4
LC6VMAX4
1 But the witness was able to testify fully about the
2 issue, and she testified fully about the matter; and there was
3 no, you know, inconsistency or prior inconsistent statement.
4 It should not be admitted into evidence.
5 THE COURT: My read on it at the time was that the
6 only discrepancy was -- the implied discrepancy was whether
7 pictures were actually sent, but the email doesn't go to that;
8 so it seems to me that her testimony was what was reflected in
9 the email. What am I missing?
10 MS. STERNHEIM: May I have just a moment?
11 THE COURT: You may.
12 And I suppose, to put a fine point on the question, as
13 Ms. Pomerantz says, what is it that the witness could not
14 recall well enough to testify fully and accurately?
15 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, it's my understanding --
16 THE COURT: I'm sorry, at the mic please.
17 MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize.
18 THE COURT: That's okay.
19 MS. STERNHEIM: Past recollection recorded does not
20 have to be inconsistent.
21 THE COURT: Okay. That's not the question.
22 So just a record that sub A is on a matter the witness
23 once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify
24 fully and accurately.
25 So what couldn't the witness testify fully and
2 issue, and she testified fully about the matter; and there was
3 no, you know, inconsistency or prior inconsistent statement.
4 It should not be admitted into evidence.
5 THE COURT: My read on it at the time was that the
6 only discrepancy was -- the implied discrepancy was whether
7 pictures were actually sent, but the email doesn't go to that;
8 so it seems to me that her testimony was what was reflected in
9 the email. What am I missing?
10 MS. STERNHEIM: May I have just a moment?
11 THE COURT: You may.
12 And I suppose, to put a fine point on the question, as
13 Ms. Pomerantz says, what is it that the witness could not
14 recall well enough to testify fully and accurately?
15 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, it's my understanding --
16 THE COURT: I'm sorry, at the mic please.
17 MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize.
18 THE COURT: That's okay.
19 MS. STERNHEIM: Past recollection recorded does not
20 have to be inconsistent.
21 THE COURT: Okay. That's not the question.
22 So just a record that sub A is on a matter the witness
23 once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify
24 fully and accurately.
25 So what couldn't the witness testify fully and
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018463
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document