DOJ-OGR-00010397.jpg

691 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 691 KB
Summary

This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, details a dispute during a trial over how to respond to a note from a deliberating jury. The Defendant proposed several responses, which the Court deemed legally erroneous, including a simple 'no' and later a request to direct the jury to specific lines of an instruction. The core issue revolves around the Defendant's argument concerning the purpose of a return flight in relation to illegal activity and the Court's discretion in guiding the jury.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Parker
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Parker, 903 F.2d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 1990)'.
Defendant Defendant
The subject of the document, who proposed responses to a jury note that were deemed erroneous by the Court.
counsel Legal Counsel
Mentioned as having discussed the jury's note with the Court and the Defendant.
trial judge Judge
Quoted from the 'United States v. Parker' case regarding their discretion in responding to jury communications.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
Court government agency
The judicial body presiding over the case, which received a note from the jury and disagreed with the Defendant's pro...
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit government agency
Referenced by the citation '(2d Cir. 1990)' in the case 'United States v. Parker'.

Timeline (3 events)

The Court and the Defendant's counsel discussed a note received from the deliberating jury.
Court
A jury was deliberating and sent a note to the court with a question.
Court
jury
A hypothetical return flight is discussed in the context of whether it could aid and abet a trip for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.

Relationships (2)

Defendant adversarial Court
The document details a disagreement between the Defendant and the Court on how to properly respond to a jury's note, with the text stating the Defendant's proposed responses were 'erroneous'.
Defendant professional counsel
The document states the Court 'discussed it with counsel' at the time the Defendant was proposing responses, indicating a typical client-attorney relationship within a legal proceeding.

Key Quotes (4)

"The trial judge is in the best position to sense whether the jury is able to proceed properly with its deliberations, and [s]he has considerable discretion in determining how to respond to communications indicating that the jury is experiencing confusion."
Source
— United States v. Parker case (A quote from a 1990 court case cited to support the trial court's discretion in handling jury questions.)
DOJ-OGR-00010397.jpg
Quote #1
— Defendant (The Defendant's first proposed answer to the jury's question.)
DOJ-OGR-00010397.jpg
Quote #2
"not for the purpose of illegal sexual activity."
Source
— Defendant (The Defendant's argument for why the answer to the jury's question should be 'no', relating to the purpose of a return flight.)
DOJ-OGR-00010397.jpg
Quote #3
"significant or motivating purpose."
Source
— Instruction No. 21 (A phrase from a jury instruction that the Defendant requested the Court to direct the jury's attention to.)
DOJ-OGR-00010397.jpg
Quote #4

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document