DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg

588 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 588 KB
Summary

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the judge regarding jury confusion over 'Count Four'. The jury is questioning the relevance of flights to New Mexico for a charge that must be considered under New York law, and the counsel debate whether simply referring the jury to the existing instructions is sufficient to resolve the issue.

People (3)

Name Role Context
MS. MOE Counsel/Attorney
Speaking to the court, arguing that the proposed jury instruction is sufficient to clarify the law.
THE COURT Judge
Presiding over the legal discussion and responding to the attorneys.
MS. STERNHEIM Counsel/Attorney
Speaking to the court, expressing concern that the jury's confusion about jurisdiction is not easily resolved.

Organizations (1)

Name Type Context
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. Company
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.

Timeline (1 events)

2022-08-10
A discussion took place regarding how to properly instruct the jury on Count Four, specifically addressing the jury's confusion over the relevance of flights to New Mexico for a charge under New York law.
Courtroom (implied)

Locations (2)

Location Context
The jurisdiction whose law (New York law, New York Penal Law) is relevant to Count Four.
The destination of flights being discussed in relation to Count Four, causing confusion for the jury.

Relationships (3)

MS. MOE Professional THE COURT
MS. MOE addresses the court as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal argument regarding jury instructions.
MS. STERNHEIM Professional THE COURT
MS. STERNHEIM addresses the court as 'Judge' and presents a counter-argument on the same legal issue.
MS. MOE Professional MS. STERNHEIM
They are presenting opposing viewpoints to the judge on how to handle a jury question, indicating they are likely opposing counsel in a legal case.

Key Quotes (2)

"Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the instruction, which says just that."
Source
— MS. MOE (Arguing that the existing jury instruction is sufficient to clarify that the charge is based on New York Penal Law.)
DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg
Quote #1
"I think the fact that the jury has mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New York is not just cleared up by referring them to the"
Source
— MS. STERNHEIM (Expressing doubt that simply referring the jury back to the instructions will resolve their confusion about the relevance of New Mexico.)
DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg
Quote #2

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document