EFTA00068582

EFTA00068842

EFTA00068843

EFTA00068844

EFTA00068845

EFTA00068846

EFTA00068847

EFTA00068848

EFTA00068849

EFTA00068850

EFTA00068851

390 
LBUVMAX6 
- cross 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
evening. 
THE COURT: It's 5 o'clock. So we'll break for the 
Members of the jury, thank you for your attention and 
diligence. I remind you to please bear in mind all of my 
instructions and rules as you break for the evening. And we'll 
start up again at the same time. 
Please arrive in time to grab some breakfast and get 
ready to go. We'll bring you out at 9:30. 
Thank you so much. Have a great evening. 
(Jury not present) 
THE COURT: The witness may step down for the evening. 
See you in the morning. 
I remind the witness and the government, since the 
witness is under cross-examination, other than logistical 
information, there won't be any communication on substance. 
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
Everyone may be seated. 
(Continued on next page) 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068852

391 
LBUCmax7 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
(Jury not present) 
THE COURT: We have some matters to take up? 
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. With respect to the Rule 
16 issue, defendants Exhibit J36, what's never produced to the 
government in Rule 16, the Court set a Rule 16 production 
deadline of November 8th of this year. It appears that this 
may have been taken November 17th of this year, but just 
because it came into existence after that deadline does not 
excuse the defense from producing anything that they plan to 
offer in evidence in this trial. So this is a violation of 
Rule 16. 
THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Menninger. 
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that rule applies to any 
documents that we're offering in our case in chief, not as 
impeachment. In the government's presentation of evidence with 
this witness, they talked about a particular home and the 
characteristics of that home. I am impeaching the witness with 
an exhibit that presents a contrary home. The rule does not 
apply to impeachment material, it applies to things we intend 
to offer in our case in chief as per the rule. 
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, then this is extrinsic 
evidence that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence to 
impeach. 
THE COURT: So it's one page of J36; correct? 
MS. MENNINGER: Correct, your Honor. I offered page 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068853

392 
LBUCmax7 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
3, your Honor. 
THE COURT: How did page 3 impeach? 
MS. MENNINGER: Because it shows the house and the 
street that she lives on which is very different from what she 
described as her childhood home. She said we were homeless. 
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, A, that's not accurate, and B, 
I think it is a clear violation of Rule 408(b). They're trying 
to offer extrinsic evidence. It's not a prior inconsistent 
statement. It's not something that falls under the criminal 
convictions contemplated by Rule 609. This is clearly 
precluded by the rules of evidence. 
THE COURT: I'll sustain. What's next? 
MS. MENNINGER: On what grounds, your Honor? On a 
Rule 16 violation? 
THE COURT: Rule 16. She recognized the street. The 
document is a current photograph. She seemed to me that she 
recognized the street because the document indicated the street 
on it. She was reading the document. So also not impeaching. 
MS. MENNINGER: We'll find another way to introduce 
it, your Honor. 
THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you --
MS. MENNINGER: We will try to find another way to 
introduce it. 
THE COURT: Okay. 
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, to the extent it's going to be 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068854

LBUCmax7 
introduced, it's in violation of Rule 16. I think to the 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
extent there are other exhibits that the defense intends to 
offer that have not already been produced to us, we would ask 
that the Court order that they make those productions 
forthwith. 
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we have a very different 
view of Rule 16. If it is an impeachment document, it is not 
covered by the rule. We will brief this tonight if your Honor 
would like. I have a very different view, apparently, than 
Ms. Comey. 
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, we do not believe that any 
prior inconsistent statements that would be admissible --
THE COURT: It's not a prior inconsistent statement. 
MS. COMEY: Exactly, your Honor. Nothing else is 
admissible as impeachment by my reading of the rules of 
evidence. 
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, anything that goes to the 
witness's memory, bias, motive, all of those are impeachment 
materials. Impeachment is not limited to prior inconsistent 
statements. That's just not the state of the law. 
THE COURT: You can brief it. So if the witness 
testifies I live in a blue house and you go out tonight and 
take a photograph of the house and it's a red house --
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. 
THE COURT: -- and you want to introduce a photograph 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068855

39.1 
LBUCmax7 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
of the red house to impeach the testimony that she lives in a 
blue house, you show it to the government before or no? 
MS. MENNINGER: I did just show it to the government. 
THE COURT: Before the beginning of the day? 
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe it's impeachment 
and it comes in when it comes in. I did not believe that your 
Honor ordered us to produce impeachment materials prior to 
trial. 
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think we may need to brief 
this tonight. 
THE COURT: You'll brief it. You'll brief it. A 
specific example would be helpful. I suppose you can use this 
one complicated by the fact that my understanding of the 
testimony was that she was -- she said that's the street I 
lived on, reading a document that she had never seen before, 
from a photograph taken in 2021. 
So I suppose the question is, perhaps you could pick 
another example, or you could imagine that photograph without 
the information --
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, if I had a photograph from 
that time period, I certainly would have used it. That's the 
only thing available to me. 
I would say, your Honor, that the government has just 
introduced, today, photographs that were taken in the last year 
of Epstein home when we're talking about events that happened 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068856

395 
LBUCmax7 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
in '94, '95, and '96. So I'm not really sure. 
THE COURT: There was a witness who testified as to it 
being an accurate reflection of what the home looked like; 
right? 
MS. MENNINGER: Without saying when, yes. A witness 
who continued to work for Mr. Epstein up until 2019. 
THE COURT: I mean, I suppose you're welcome to object 
to foundation, but there wasn't an objection to foundation. 
In any event, you'll brief whether the defense is 
obligated under Rule 16 to produce in advance to the government 
documents that clearly -- and we're not talking about 
statements. 
MS. COMEY: That's correct, your Honor. We're talking 
about an exhibit like a photograph, something like this very 
exhibit seems like classical 16. So we'll brief it, your 
Honor. 
THE COURT: Okay. Certainly, there is at least two 
situations. There is the situation in which the witness said 
something and you couldn't have anticipated what they said and 
you have something that you want to impeach with it, you 
couldn't have produced that in advance. So the question is not 
that, but obviously when you anticipate particular testimony 
and you have material that you think impeaches that you intend 
to introduce as evidence through cross examination. Whether 
you're obligated under Rule 16 to turn that over in advance, 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068857

396 
LBUCmax7 
that's the question. 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
So government's objection, so when would you like to 
brief? 
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may we have by 9:00 p.m. 
tonight? 
THE COURT: And Ms. Menninger? Or you could put in 
first. You tell me your preference. 
MS. MENNINGER: If I could confer, your Honor. 
THE COURT: Okay. 
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, is it all right if 
Ms. Drescher begins collecting the juror binders while we 
continue? 
THE COURT: Sure. 
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we would prefer to put in 
our support why this is not covered by Rule 16 by 9:00 p.m. 
THE COURT: You can do that. When would the 
government like to respond? 
You can simultaneously put in letters. Why don't we 
do that. You'll both put in letters at 9:00. 
MS. COMEY: That's fine, your Honor. 
THE COURT: Thank you. We need to deal with the 
witness identifying information. How are we going to handle 
this, Ms. Moe? 
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. We appreciate an 
opportunity to confer with the defense about the subject matter 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068858

397 
LBUCmax7 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
at a high level of cross and what might 
troubleshoot these issues in advance in 
solution that avoids wasting the jury's 
be identified so we can 
order to work on a 
time and, most 
importantly, jeopardizing the privacy of a crime victim. We 
have previously reached out to defense to ask to confer about 
some of these issues. We would like to do that this evening. 
I am concerned that there may be topics that are identifying as 
to this victim and we would be happy to talk it through with 
defense counsel and work out a solution about anonymizing names 
or other issues as we continued all along in this case. 
So we ask the Court to direct the parties to meet and 
confer on that issue given the steaks of that issue in this 
case. 
THE COURT: Ms. Menninger, the witness is on cross, so 
they can't confer with the witness. Any reason not to do that? 
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I see no reason not to 
confer with the government about a way that we can accommodate 
this. 
THE COURT: You can do that. If you have different 
views, you'll raise them with me by letter tonight if you come 
to a point of disagreement. Okay? 
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. 
MS. MENNINGER: Thank you. 
THE COURT: Anything else? 
MS. MENNINGER: Not from us, your Honor. Thank you. 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068859

398 
LBUCmax7 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
THE COURT: And just so -- I sealed the sidebar where 
we discussed identifying information about the witness and 
because I sealed a portion of the testimony so that the 
government can propose redactions. 
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. 
THE COURT: When will you do that by? 
MS. MOE: Proposed redactions, your Honor? Your 
Honor, I'm not quite sure at what time this evening we'll 
receive the court transcript, but we'd be happy to do that 
perhaps by midday tomorrow. 
THE COURT: That's fine. I would just like to set a 
time for if I'm going to hear from you on disagreement as to 
how to proceed on cross so as to avoid public identifying 
information. 
What's a reasonable time for you to confer and put in 
a letter if there is disagreement? 
MS. MOE: Your Honor, we'd be happy to confer 
following the court day today. With respect to any 
disagreements, we can file simultaneous letters at perhaps 
10 o'clock this evening. 
THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Menninger. 
MS. MENNINGER: That's fine, your Honor. 
THE COURT: Okay. What else do we need to address? 
MS. MOE: Your Honor, we had just one issue to raise 
regarding the next witness. We just wanted to let the Court 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068860

399 
LBUCmax7 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
know, as the Court may recall, 
testified earlier today 
about having disclosed having been abused to a person who we 
are identifying in this proceeding as 
We anticipate that 
would be the next witness in this case who would be 
testifying about a prior consistent statement by 
. We are 
offering that testimony under both prongs of Rule 801(d)(1), 
and I'd be happy to walk that through with the Court. 
With respect to the first prong of the rule --
THE COURT: Is there an objection? 
MS. STERNHEIM: I'd like to hear their bases. 
THE COURT: You have clarity on what the statement is? 
MS. STERNHEIM: Well --
THE COURT: I don't, so I don't know if you do or not. 
MS. STERNHEIM: I think I would have to parse what the 
next witness is going to say with the testimony here because it 
doesn't dovetail as the government is suggesting. 
THE COURT: Okay. Can you be specific? 
MS. MOE: Of course, your Honor. I'd be happy to 
provide a proffer. I'd anticipate that ■ 
would testify that 
he was in a relationship with 
in 2007, '08, and '09, and 
years thereafter. And during those years, he recalls having 
conversations with 
in which 
told him that when she 
was growing up as a kid, her family struggled financially and 
he asked her how they were able to pay for things when she was 
growing up, and she told him that there was this uncle or 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068861