DOJ-OGR-00013212.jpg
556 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
556 KB
Summary
This document is page 199 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey regarding the legal theory of 'omission' and whether prior statements lacking certain facts constitute an inconsistency relevant to the jury. Ms. Comey argues that omission is only relevant if the omitted facts would reasonably have been expected in the original statement.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Attorney |
Argues in favor of the 'omission theory' regarding admissibility of evidence/testimony.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the discussion, questioning the legal basis for the omission theory.
|
| Ms. Comey | Attorney |
Argues against the omission theory, stating it only applies when omitted facts would be expected in the statement.
|
| Carolyn | Witness/Subject |
Mentioned in the header 'Carolyn - cross', indicating this is likely during the cross-examination or a sidebar relate...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceeding regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Legal argument regarding 'omission theory' and inconsistency in testimony.
Southern District of New York (implied by court reporters)
Relationships (1)
They are arguing opposite sides of a legal theory regarding omission and testimony.
Key Quotes (2)
"THE COURT: Do you have a case for that proposition? I mean, it's really a factual question whether there is a reasonable inference available from which the jury could conclude that there is an inconsistency..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013212.jpg
Quote #1
"MS. COMEY: I think the theory of omission only works where one would expect that the specific facts that are omitted would be included in the particular statement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013212.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,395 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 199 of 264 1640
LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross
LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross
1 whole thing.
2 Let me just ask. If there were, for example, a
3 paragraph that said these are some of the facts of what
4 occurred, but not all of them, would your omission theory work
5 to get everything in?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
7 THE COURT: If there is a few discrepancies?
8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
9 THE COURT: Do you have a case for that proposition?
10 I mean, it's really a factual question whether there is a
11 reasonable inference available from which the jury could
12 conclude that there is an inconsistency by testifying to one
13 thing to inclusion of facts now that were not included
14 previously.
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think that's true and it's under the
16 circumstances -- I mean the case law, I can -- I need to pull
17 up my computer to give you the cite here, your Honor, but I'll
18 do that now.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Comey.
20 MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. I think the theory
21 of omission only works where one would expect that the specific
22 facts that are omitted would be included in the particular
23 statement. This is a lawsuit brought against two defendants
24 and it is containing the core allegations against those two
25 defendants. One would not expect that to include allegations
2 Let me just ask. If there were, for example, a
3 paragraph that said these are some of the facts of what
4 occurred, but not all of them, would your omission theory work
5 to get everything in?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
7 THE COURT: If there is a few discrepancies?
8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
9 THE COURT: Do you have a case for that proposition?
10 I mean, it's really a factual question whether there is a
11 reasonable inference available from which the jury could
12 conclude that there is an inconsistency by testifying to one
13 thing to inclusion of facts now that were not included
14 previously.
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think that's true and it's under the
16 circumstances -- I mean the case law, I can -- I need to pull
17 up my computer to give you the cite here, your Honor, but I'll
18 do that now.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Comey.
20 MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. I think the theory
21 of omission only works where one would expect that the specific
22 facts that are omitted would be included in the particular
23 statement. This is a lawsuit brought against two defendants
24 and it is containing the core allegations against those two
25 defendants. One would not expect that to include allegations
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013212
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document