DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
607 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
607 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are debating the precise wording to use when presenting overt acts from an indictment to a jury, specifically concerning the age of a victim. The core issue is how to handle discrepancies between the age listed in the indictment ('under 18') and the legally relevant age of consent ('17'), with proposals ranging from using general legal phrasing to modifying the specific age with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney |
Speaker in a court proceeding, likely representing the defense, discussing the wording of an indictment regarding ages.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney |
Speaker in a court proceeding, likely representing the government, responding to Mr. Everdell's concerns about indict...
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by the attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach) and identified as THE COURT, presiding over the legal proc...
|
| Jane |
Mentioned hypothetically by Mr. Everdell as a placeholder name for a person in the indictment ("when Jane was under t...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach as the party he represents, which would be fine with a proposed change to the indictment's ...
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Attorneys and a judge discuss how to phrase language from an indictment concerning the age of a victim for presentation to a jury. The debate centers on whether to use the specific age from the indictment (18), a more general legal phrase ('relevant age of consent'), or a different specific age (17) with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned by Mr. Everdell as part of a proposed phrasing for the indictment.
|
Relationships (3)
Both are attorneys participating in the same court case, representing opposing sides (defense and government), and are negotiating the wording of court documents with the judge.
Mr. Everdell, an attorney, addresses the judge as 'your Honor' and presents his legal arguments and suggestions to the court.
Mr. Rohrbach, an attorney, addresses the judge as 'your Honor' and presents the government's position on a legal matter.
Key Quotes (2)
"maybe instead of "under the age of 18," "when Jane was under the relevant age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction," or something to that effect."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Proposing alternative language for the jury instructions to avoid confusion about different ages in statutes versus the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
Quote #1
"I think for Counts One and Three, since the relevant age of consent I think everyone agrees is 17, the government would be fine with saying "under the age of 17," and we'd have to say "the indictment alleges" or something like that, because it would no longer be following the text of the indictment."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Responding to the defense's concern and offering a counter-proposal on behalf of the government.)
DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document