DOJ-OGR-00016749.jpg
562 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript (criminal case)
File Size:
562 KB
Summary
This document is page 20 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. The content captures a procedural discussion where the Judge ('The Court') outlines the legal requirements for introducing extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a witness, citing United States v. Gulani. Ms. Menninger briefly responds to a question about a pseudonym.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney (likely Prosecutor) |
Answering a question from the Judge regarding a pseudonym.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Outlining legal standards for offering extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements.
|
| AJN | Judge (Initials in case header) |
Judge Alison J. Nathan (inferred from case number suffix).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting service listed in the footer.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York (cited in legal precedent).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceeding in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court is defining the legal standard for impeaching a witness.
Southern District of New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction implied by case number and reporter footer.
|
Relationships (1)
Dialogue exchange in court transcript.
Key Quotes (3)
"Second, the parties seeking to offer extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement must have laid a proper foundation for doing so..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016749.jpg
Quote #1
"Finally, even if all these requirements have been satisfied, the trial court nevertheless may exclude the extrinsic evidence under Rule 403 on an appropriate finding."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016749.jpg
Quote #2
"At issue first is step 2, whether the witness being impeached had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016749.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,372 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 20 of 197 2561
LCFCmax1
LCFCmax1
1 a pseudonym?
2 MS. MENNINGER: No, it was not, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Okay. Just wanted to ask that.
4 Second, the parties seeking to offer extrinsic
5 evidence of a prior inconsistent statement must have laid a
6 proper foundation for doing so by affording, A, the witness an
7 opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent
8 statement; and B, the opposite party an opportunity to question
9 the witness about it.
10 Third, the extrinsic evidence of the prior
11 inconsistent statement must be competent and otherwise
12 admissible.
13 Fourth, the impeachment by prior inconsistent
14 statement must relate to material rather than a collateral
15 matter.
16 Finally, even if all these requirements have been
17 satisfied, the trial court nevertheless may exclude the
18 extrinsic evidence under Rule 403 on an appropriate finding.
19 That's United States v. Gulani, 761 F. Supp. 2d 114. (S.D.N.Y.
20 2011).
21 At issue first is step 2, whether the witness being
22 impeached had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
23 Parties have diametrically opposed interpretations of this
24 requirement, but in support of its position that the witness
25 need not be shown the prior statement. The defense has
2 MS. MENNINGER: No, it was not, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Okay. Just wanted to ask that.
4 Second, the parties seeking to offer extrinsic
5 evidence of a prior inconsistent statement must have laid a
6 proper foundation for doing so by affording, A, the witness an
7 opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent
8 statement; and B, the opposite party an opportunity to question
9 the witness about it.
10 Third, the extrinsic evidence of the prior
11 inconsistent statement must be competent and otherwise
12 admissible.
13 Fourth, the impeachment by prior inconsistent
14 statement must relate to material rather than a collateral
15 matter.
16 Finally, even if all these requirements have been
17 satisfied, the trial court nevertheless may exclude the
18 extrinsic evidence under Rule 403 on an appropriate finding.
19 That's United States v. Gulani, 761 F. Supp. 2d 114. (S.D.N.Y.
20 2011).
21 At issue first is step 2, whether the witness being
22 impeached had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
23 Parties have diametrically opposed interpretations of this
24 requirement, but in support of its position that the witness
25 need not be shown the prior statement. The defense has
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016749
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document