DOJ-OGR-00013885.jpg
604 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
604 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) and Mr. Everdell (defense) before the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs intended to prove a 'continuing relationship' between a witness (pseudonym 'Jane') and the defendant. The Court rules to allow the evidence, citing that it is not prejudicial under Rule 403, while emphasizing the need to maintain the witness's anonymity.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Pomerantz | Attorney (Prosecution) |
Argues regarding impeachment and relevance of evidence.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presides over the hearing, rules on relevance and prejudice (Rule 403), and allows evidence while protecting witness ...
|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney (Defense) |
Argues for the admission of photographs to show a continuing relationship and discusses instructions given to a witne...
|
| Jane | Witness |
A witness using a pseudonym to protect anonymity; subject of the testimony/evidence discussion.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Indicated by the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court hearing regarding the admissibility of photographic evidence and witness anonymity protocols.
Courtroom (Southern District of New York)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by Southern District Reporters and Case Number structure (1:20-cr-00330-PAE is a SDNY case).
|
Relationships (2)
Mr. Everdell states: 'these photographs show that the relationship continued.'
Mr. Everdell states: 'I've met with the witness and I've impressed upon her that she should only use the name Jane.'
Key Quotes (4)
"And these photographs show that the relationship continued."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013885.jpg
Quote #1
"I don't think it's 403 prejudice to have duplicative evidence of the nature of the relationship."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013885.jpg
Quote #2
"mindful of the need to continue to protect the anonymity of the witness, I would allow it."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013885.jpg
Quote #3
"I've impressed upon her that she should only use the name Jane."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013885.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,528 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 26 of 246 2321
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, yes. There's no dispute
2 about that. This wouldn't impeach her.
3 THE COURT: I understand it wouldn't impeach, but
4 first we start with the relevance question. That's already in.
5 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we don't simply have to
8 take the witness's testimony. We are allowed to show that same
9 point through other evidence. And these photographs show that
10 the relationship continued. And we are entitled to argue not
11 just from the witness's testimony, but from these photographs,
12 that there was a continuing relationship and what that means in
13 the defense's estimation, how we view -- how we can argue to
14 the jury what that means in terms of her state of mind.
15 THE COURT: All right. That the point is already in
16 establishes relevance. I don't think it's 403 prejudice to
17 have duplicative evidence of the nature of the relationship. I
18 don't hear an argument for prejudice otherwise. So obviously
19 mindful of the need to continue to protect the anonymity of the
20 witness, I would allow it.
21 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
22 And I've met with the witness and I've impressed upon
23 her that she should only use the name Jane. And if she's
24 referring to Jane's family members, say the mother or the
25 brothers, she will say it that way, Jane's mother, Jane's
2 about that. This wouldn't impeach her.
3 THE COURT: I understand it wouldn't impeach, but
4 first we start with the relevance question. That's already in.
5 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we don't simply have to
8 take the witness's testimony. We are allowed to show that same
9 point through other evidence. And these photographs show that
10 the relationship continued. And we are entitled to argue not
11 just from the witness's testimony, but from these photographs,
12 that there was a continuing relationship and what that means in
13 the defense's estimation, how we view -- how we can argue to
14 the jury what that means in terms of her state of mind.
15 THE COURT: All right. That the point is already in
16 establishes relevance. I don't think it's 403 prejudice to
17 have duplicative evidence of the nature of the relationship. I
18 don't hear an argument for prejudice otherwise. So obviously
19 mindful of the need to continue to protect the anonymity of the
20 witness, I would allow it.
21 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
22 And I've met with the witness and I've impressed upon
23 her that she should only use the name Jane. And if she's
24 referring to Jane's family members, say the mother or the
25 brothers, she will say it that way, Jane's mother, Jane's
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013885
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document