📧 Communication

courtroom argument

Communication Details

From
Unnamed speaker (attorney) Linked to Unnamed speaker (attorney)
To
["Honor (Judge)"] ["Honor (Judge)"]
Date
July 22, 2022
Subject
Distinction between Ex Post Facto Clause and Sixth Amendment Apprendi issues.
Message Content

An attorney argues to a judge that determining when an offense ended, for the purpose of an Ex Post Facto Clause analysis, is a question of fact for the jury, not a Sixth Amendment issue for the judge. The attorney cites the Tykarsky opinion as precedent and notes the government has not responded to this argument.

📄 Source Document

DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
DOJ Collection
View Document
Document 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.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein communication