DOJ-OGR-00016987.jpg
617 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
617 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding dated August 10, 2022, detailing arguments concerning a defendant's involvement in offenses. The discussion revolves around the prosecution's theory of the defendant as an 'active participant' and the appropriateness of a 'conscious avoidance theory' instruction for the jury, particularly given the case involves children. Mr. Rohrbach presents counter-arguments, asserting that conviction remains possible based on the defendant's facilitation of offenses and the conscious avoidance theory.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by speakers in court proceedings
|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Speaker/Attorney |
Making legal arguments in court
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal arguments, accused of being an 'active participant' and 'facilitation of the various offenses'
|
| witnesses | Witnesses |
Testified that 'she was an active participant'
|
| jurors | Jurors |
Will consider evidence and potentially convict the defendant
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Court reporting service responsible for the transcript
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Legal arguments are being made regarding a defendant's active participation in offenses, the sufficiency of proof at trial, and the potential application of a 'conscious avoidance theory' instruction to the jury, particularly concerning cases involving children.
court
Relationships (1)
Mr. Rohrbach addresses 'Your Honor' in a legal proceeding, indicating a lawyer-judge relationship.
Key Quotes (5)
"The theory they are proceeding on is that she is an active participant. They can't have it both ways. The proof at trial that they have elicited is that she was actively involved. This seems to be here as some sort of backup option. And that's not permissible, your Honor."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016987.jpg
Quote #1
"And I would add that, in a case like this in particular, there is a real concern that the jurors are going to look at this evidence and, given the subject matter of the case, they're going to think, well, she must have known and that's enough for me because this is conduct that really I can't countenance because it involves children. And then the conscious avoidance instruction will give them license to convict the defendant on an improper basis simply because of the nature of the subject matter."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016987.jpg
Quote #2
"So that's an overlay, your Honor. But at the basis, it's that the proof and the theory of the charging in this case and the proof that's gone with it is that she's an active participant o, so we do not think that there is an appropriate factual predicate for this charge."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016987.jpg
Quote #3
"A few responses to that, your Honor."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Introduction to Mr. Rohrbach's counter-arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00016987.jpg
Quote #4
"First of all, the witnesses testified that she was an active participant. The jury may reject their testimony that she actively participated and can still convict based on her facilitation of the various offenses, including through a conscious avoidance theory."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Mr. Rohrbach's argument that conviction is possible based on facilitation and conscious avoidance, even if direct active participation is not proven.)
DOJ-OGR-00016987.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,574 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 61 of 95 2799
LCIAMAX2ps
LCIAMAX2ps
1 The theory they are proceeding on is that she is an
2 active participant. They can't have it both ways. The proof
3 at trial that they have elicited is that she was actively
4 involved. This seems to be here as some sort of backup option.
5 And that's not permissible, your Honor.
6 And I would add that, in a case like this in
7 particular, there is a real concern that the jurors are going
8 to look at this evidence and, given the subject matter of the
9 case, they're going to think, well, she must have known and
10 that's enough for me because this is conduct that really I
11 can't countenance because it involves children. And then the
12 conscious avoidance instruction will give them license to
13 convict the defendant on an improper basis simply because of
14 the nature of the subject matter.
15 So that's an overlay, your Honor. But at the basis,
16 it's that the proof and the theory of the charging in this case
17 and the proof that's gone with it is that she's an active
18 participant o, so we do not think that there is an appropriate
19 factual predicate for this charge.
20 MR. ROHRBACH: A few responses to that, your Honor.
21 First of all, the witnesses testified that she was an active
22 participant. The jury may reject their testimony that she
23 actively participated and can still convict based on her
24 facilitation of the various offenses, including through a
25 conscious avoidance theory.
2 active participant. They can't have it both ways. The proof
3 at trial that they have elicited is that she was actively
4 involved. This seems to be here as some sort of backup option.
5 And that's not permissible, your Honor.
6 And I would add that, in a case like this in
7 particular, there is a real concern that the jurors are going
8 to look at this evidence and, given the subject matter of the
9 case, they're going to think, well, she must have known and
10 that's enough for me because this is conduct that really I
11 can't countenance because it involves children. And then the
12 conscious avoidance instruction will give them license to
13 convict the defendant on an improper basis simply because of
14 the nature of the subject matter.
15 So that's an overlay, your Honor. But at the basis,
16 it's that the proof and the theory of the charging in this case
17 and the proof that's gone with it is that she's an active
18 participant o, so we do not think that there is an appropriate
19 factual predicate for this charge.
20 MR. ROHRBACH: A few responses to that, your Honor.
21 First of all, the witnesses testified that she was an active
22 participant. The jury may reject their testimony that she
23 actively participated and can still convict based on her
24 facilitation of the various offenses, including through a
25 conscious avoidance theory.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016987
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016987
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document