DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
660 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
660 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, where an attorney argues a legal point to a judge. The attorney contends that determining the end date of an offense, which is critical for an Ex Post Facto Clause violation claim, is a factual question for the jury, not a Sixth Amendment issue for the judge as per the Apprendi line of cases. The attorney cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion as support and notes that the government has not responded to this specific argument.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as having overruled a previous decision related to sentencing.
|
| The government | government agency |
Mentioned as the opposing party in the legal argument, which has allegedly not responded to the speaker's point.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-07-22
An attorney presents a legal argument distinguishing an Ex Post Facto issue from a Sixth Amendment Apprendi issue, arguing a specific decision should be made by the jury.
Court in the Southern District
Unnamed speaker (attorney)
Honor (Judge)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting company, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Key Quotes (3)
"Under the cases that we've cited, your Honor, we think that that is an issue for the jury to decide, and it is not really in the Apprendi line of cases."Source
— Unnamed speaker (attorney)
(The speaker is arguing that the factual determination underlying an ex post facto claim should be decided by the jury, distinguishing it from legal issues decided by a judge under the Apprendi precedent.)
DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
Quote #1
"This decision about whether or not the offense conduct ended at a certain time, if it triggers an increase that implicates the ex post facto clause is a decision for the jury to make."Source
— Unnamed speaker (attorney)
(Summarizing the core of the legal argument being presented to the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
Quote #2
"The government has not responded to that argument, and we think that that is a"Source
— Unnamed speaker (attorney)
(Concluding the argument by pointing out that the opposing side (the government) has not addressed this specific legal point.)
DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document