📧 Communication

Court hearing dialogue

Communication Details

From
To
Unnamed Judge Unnamed Judge
Date
June 29, 2023
Subject
Argument on sentencing guidelines and the Ex Post Facto Clause
Message Content

Mr. Everdell argues that the determination of which sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) apply should have been made by a jury, not the court, because the issue involves a factual determination about when the offense ended and implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause.

📄 Source Document

DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
DOJ Collection
View Document
Document Summary

This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a discussion during a sentencing hearing. Counsel Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should have determined whether the 2003 or 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, as this is a factual determination tied to when the offense ended and is protected by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judge is hearing this argument after noting the probation department's recommendation for a 240-month sentence, a downward variance from the calculated range.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein communication