DOJ-OGR-00017341.jpg
593 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
593 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The attorney argues for a supplemental jury instruction concerning the territorial limits of New York law, which the judge rejects. The judge then raises concerns about potential trial interruptions from a health 'variant' and the need for jurors to plan for extended deliberations.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
Addresses the court as 'your Honor' after the court speaks, suggesting he is an attorney involved in the case.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaking in a judicial capacity, ruling on a proposed jury instruction and managing the trial proceedings.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, indicating they are the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion during a trial about a rejected supplemental jury instruction and logistical concerns regarding jury deliberation due to health risks.
Courtroom (implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location of an activity that is central to a legal argument about jurisdiction and intent.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of its law, which an attorney argues cannot be violated by actions taking place in New Mexico.
|
Relationships (1)
The document records a formal, professional exchange between a judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MR. EVERDELL) during a legal proceeding.
Key Quotes (3)
"it requires an intent to violate New York law, and you can't violate this section of New York law in New Mexico."Source
— Unnamed speaker (presumably counsel)
(Arguing that activity in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a conviction under a specific New York law.)
DOJ-OGR-00017341.jpg
Quote #1
"I think the instruction is correct that I referred them to."Source
— THE COURT
(Justifying the rejection of a proposed supplemental jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00017341.jpg
Quote #2
"in light of the variant, my concern about interruption of trial, given the increasing daily risk of exposure to either a juror or trial participant requiring quarantine, it is time to think to have the jurors make plans to continue deliberating until a verdict is reached."Source
— THE COURT
(Expressing concern over potential trial delays due to health risks and instructing that jurors should prepare for extended deliberations.)
DOJ-OGR-00017341.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,478 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 16 3154
LCSCMAXI
LCSCMAXI
activity that occurred in New Mexico, that wouldn't be a
sufficient basis to convict on Count Four or Count Two because
it requires an intent to violate New York law, and you can't
violate this section of New York law in New Mexico.
So if that's all they're considered on a basis to
convict on Count Four and Count Two, then that would be
insufficient and improper, and that's why I think a
supplemental instruction that clarifies that point is warranted
in this case, but I understand the Court has rejected that.
And that's all.
THE COURT: I think the instruction is correct that I
referred them to. The reading of the note that you've
suggested, I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or
many other plausible readings, and what you've proposed, as you
just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that's why
precisely we sent them back to the charge.
Anything else?
MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: As I said, we'll see where we are at the
end of the day, but in light of the variant, my concern about
interruption of trial, given the increasing daily risk of
exposure to either a juror or trial participant requiring
quarantine, it is time to think to have the jurors make plans
to continue deliberating until a verdict is reached.
I will wait until we hear from the jury, otherwise
sufficient basis to convict on Count Four or Count Two because
it requires an intent to violate New York law, and you can't
violate this section of New York law in New Mexico.
So if that's all they're considered on a basis to
convict on Count Four and Count Two, then that would be
insufficient and improper, and that's why I think a
supplemental instruction that clarifies that point is warranted
in this case, but I understand the Court has rejected that.
And that's all.
THE COURT: I think the instruction is correct that I
referred them to. The reading of the note that you've
suggested, I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or
many other plausible readings, and what you've proposed, as you
just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that's why
precisely we sent them back to the charge.
Anything else?
MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: As I said, we'll see where we are at the
end of the day, but in light of the variant, my concern about
interruption of trial, given the increasing daily risk of
exposure to either a juror or trial participant requiring
quarantine, it is time to think to have the jurors make plans
to continue deliberating until a verdict is reached.
I will wait until we hear from the jury, otherwise
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017341
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document