DOJ-OGR-00016907.jpg
538 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
538 KB
Summary
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues that prior testimony from Jeffrey Epstein regarding his move to 9 East 71st Street (which he stated was around 1996) is relevant because a witness named 'Jane' claimed he lived there in 1994. The Court sustains an objection to this line of argument, referencing a prior ruling regarding the 'motive to develop' testimony.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney |
Arguing regarding the admissibility of prior testimony and motive to develop it.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, asking questions, and sustaining an objection.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of testimony |
Quoted regarding his move date to 9 East 71st Street.
|
| Jane | Witness/Victim (Pseudonym) |
Her position was that Epstein was living at the location in 1994.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Footer information
|
|
| DOJ |
Implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00016907
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Epstein's residence; discussion centers on when he moved here.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction implied by the court reporter name (SDNY).
|
Relationships (1)
Dispute over timeline of residence; 'Jane' claimed he lived there in 1994 contrary to his testimony.
Key Quotes (4)
"Is it correct that you moved from the premises to 9 East 71st in or around the beginning of 1996?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016907.jpg
Quote #1
"I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly when."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016907.jpg
Quote #2
"And the position of Jane was that he was living there in 1994."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016907.jpg
Quote #3
"There was motive to develop it, your Honor. That was the whole point of this litigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016907.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,312 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 178 of 197 2719
LCHVMAX6
LCHVMAX6
1 from one residence to another one by a certain date in order to
2 advance their claims about ejectment and back rent.
3 MS. MENNINGER: In the answer itself, Mr. Epstein
4 says, You asked me that question three times. And the question
5 was, Is it correct that you moved from the premises to 9 East
6 71st in or around the beginning of 1996?
7 That's the exact question --
8 THE COURT: What was the response?
9 MS. MENNINGER: You asked me that question three
10 times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly
11 when.
12 And the position of Jane was that he was living there
13 in 1994. So I think under 401, it is a question of whether
14 that's relevant. It is certainly different than the
15 testimony --
16 THE COURT: The fact that it was asked three times is
17 the argument that it -- contrary to my immediately prior
18 ruling, that there was a motive to develop it?
19 MS. MENNINGER: There was motive to develop it, your
20 Honor. That was the whole point of this litigation. I mean, I
21 can offer the complaint as well, but it's in the summary
22 judgment ruling.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 For the same reason, it's sustained.
25 What else?
2 advance their claims about ejectment and back rent.
3 MS. MENNINGER: In the answer itself, Mr. Epstein
4 says, You asked me that question three times. And the question
5 was, Is it correct that you moved from the premises to 9 East
6 71st in or around the beginning of 1996?
7 That's the exact question --
8 THE COURT: What was the response?
9 MS. MENNINGER: You asked me that question three
10 times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly
11 when.
12 And the position of Jane was that he was living there
13 in 1994. So I think under 401, it is a question of whether
14 that's relevant. It is certainly different than the
15 testimony --
16 THE COURT: The fact that it was asked three times is
17 the argument that it -- contrary to my immediately prior
18 ruling, that there was a motive to develop it?
19 MS. MENNINGER: There was motive to develop it, your
20 Honor. That was the whole point of this litigation. I mean, I
21 can offer the complaint as well, but it's in the summary
22 judgment ruling.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 For the same reason, it's sustained.
25 What else?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016907
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document