📧 Communication

brief

Communication Details

From
To
["Court"] ["Court"]
Subject
Legal arguments in the case
Message Content

Mr. Shechtman's brief is mentioned as having omitted the fact that the jury's struggle with legal definitions ended after they asked the Court to reread them.

📄 Source Document

DOJ-OGR-00010180.jpg
DOJ Collection
View Document
Document Summary

This document is a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues against a motion for a new trial. She references a letter from Catherine Conrad about jury deliberations concerning David Parse, noting the jury struggled with the legal definitions of 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' but ultimately made a deliberate and informed decision, as evidenced by their verdict on conspiracy and tax evasion counts. The discussion highlights the legal nuances that influenced the jury's split verdict.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein communication