Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26825House OversightDeposition

Court hearing discusses inadmissibility of hearsay involving Rebecca Boylan, Alan Dershowitz, and allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell

The passage outlines a procedural argument about hearsay rules in a case that mentions high‑profile individuals (Dershowitz, Giuffre, Maxwell). While it flags potential testimonial manipulation, it of Rebecca Boylan has not been deposed and is not expected to testify. Defense plans to call Alan Dershowitz to relay alleged statements from Boylan about Giuffre. The argument centers on whether multip

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011344
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines a procedural argument about hearsay rules in a case that mentions high‑profile individuals (Dershowitz, Giuffre, Maxwell). While it flags potential testimonial manipulation, it of Rebecca Boylan has not been deposed and is not expected to testify. Defense plans to call Alan Dershowitz to relay alleged statements from Boylan about Giuffre. The argument centers on whether multip

Tags

witness-manipulationlegal-procedurecourt-hearinghighprofile-individualslegal-exposuretestimonyhouse-oversighthearsay

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 H3VOGIU1 or was not privileged. We don't take jury evidence on that, you know, Judge Marra's ruling, and therefore, that should be excluded. So that is item number 19. Let me turn then to item 20, and I'm handling that. This is essentially a hearsay exercise. We want information to b xcluded regarding Rebecca Boylan. Why? Because Rebecca Boylan has not been deposed and is not going to be a witness in the case. As we understand what the defendant is planning to do, she's planning to call Mr. Dershowitz. Mr. Dershowitz is going to say Ms. Boylan told him that Ms. Giuffre told him something, and so we have the classic hearsay within a hearsay situation. The problem, of course, is that Boylan is not here. The defendant's pleadings say, ah-hah, but this is an admission by Ms. Giuffre, and it would be if Ms. Boylan were on the stand so we could ask her questions about, well, did Ms. Giuffre really say that? And what did she mean? And wasn't she saying that she's been abused by Ms. Maxwell? But they want to skip over that intermediate stuff, have Dershowitz describe what Boylan describes Ms. Giuffre said, and that's obviously -- and then I'm assuming Dershowitz is going to put his spin on what Ms. Boylan allegedly said to him. There are no set of circumstances in which that hearsay within hearsay could be admissible because Ms. Boylan has not been deposed, and is not here, it's rank multiple hearsay. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone(212) 805-0300

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court filing alleges Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew forced minor Jane Doe #3 into sexual acts on multiple trips with Epstein

The passage provides specific allegations linking a high‑profile U.S. lawyer and a senior British royal to sexual abuse of a minor, citing locations, travel itineraries, and a formal court pleading. T Alleged sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 by Alan Dershowitz on private planes and in multiple jurisdictio Alleged sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 by Prince Andrew in London, New York, and on Epstein’s U.S. Vi

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

SE?Oet

M SE?Oet ASO Se , R‘N)C% 5C>CUMC- 7- f9 kCseriA/C GteCC Hi t\iCt :5122122, 1:31 PM --7—Jmrerepstent—galepedts Epstein a massage". She claims she was taken to his mansion, Perversion of Justice, Miami Herald, where he exposed himself and had sexual intercourse with i November 3O, 2018. her, and paid her $2OO immediately afterward0161 A similar $50-million suit was filed in March 2008, by a different woman, who was represented by the same lawyer EL-29i These and several similar lawsuits were dismissal Ea°1 All other lawsuits have been settled by Epstein out of court: b$11 Epstein made many out-of-court settlements with alleged victims.0.21 Victims' rights: Jane Does v. United States (2014) A December 3o, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida by Jane Doe 1 ) and Jane Doe 2 against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rietts Act by the U.S. Department of Justice's NPA with Epstein and his limited 2008 state plea. There was a later unsucc

17p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01683110

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01401218

0p
Court UnsealedAug 9, 2019

Maxwell Disputes

Case 18-2868, Document 284, 08/09/2019, 2628244, Page1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------- ............................................. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, 15-cv-07433-RWS Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Statement of Contested Facts and Plaintiff’s “Undisputed Facts” Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 Laura A. M

38p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.