DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg
588 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
588 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the judge regarding jury confusion over 'Count Four'. The jury is questioning the relevance of flights to New Mexico for a charge that must be considered under New York law, and the counsel debate whether simply referring the jury to the existing instructions is sufficient to resolve the issue.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Counsel/Attorney |
Speaking to the court, arguing that the proposed jury instruction is sufficient to clarify the law.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the legal discussion and responding to the attorneys.
|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Counsel/Attorney |
Speaking to the court, expressing concern that the jury's confusion about jurisdiction is not easily resolved.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion took place regarding how to properly instruct the jury on Count Four, specifically addressing the jury's confusion over the relevance of flights to New Mexico for a charge under New York law.
Courtroom (implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The jurisdiction whose law (New York law, New York Penal Law) is relevant to Count Four.
|
|
|
The destination of flights being discussed in relation to Count Four, causing confusion for the jury.
|
Relationships (3)
MS. MOE addresses the court as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal argument regarding jury instructions.
MS. STERNHEIM addresses the court as 'Judge' and presents a counter-argument on the same legal issue.
They are presenting opposing viewpoints to the judge on how to handle a jury question, indicating they are likely opposing counsel in a legal case.
Key Quotes (2)
"Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the instruction, which says just that."Source
— MS. MOE
(Arguing that the existing jury instruction is sufficient to clarify that the charge is based on New York Penal Law.)
DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg
Quote #1
"I think the fact that the jury has mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New York is not just cleared up by referring them to the"Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Expressing doubt that simply referring the jury back to the instructions will resolve their confusion about the relevance of New Mexico.)
DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,638 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 29 3139
LCRVMAXT
LCRVMAXT
1 which is the substantive transportation count, which, as we
2 know, has to deal with the violation of New York law. And they
3 are talking about flights to New Mexico; and can she be found
4 guilty on the second element of Count Four regarding these
5 flights to New Mexico.
6 So I think we may have to respond to the jury on that
7 score as well, which is the fact that they have to be
8 considering New York events for Count Four, rather than -- or
9 violations of New York law, which wouldn't occur in New Mexico
10 for there to be a conviction on Count Four.
11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we
12 proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the
13 instruction, which says just that. The second paragraph of
14 that same instruction reminds the jury, as the instruction does
15 throughout, that we're talking about New York Penal Law,
16 Section 130.55. And so I think our proposal remains the same
17 that they be referred to the entirety of the instruction, which
18 includes that language, among other aspects of this particular
19 element.
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, may I be heard for a moment?
22 THE COURT: Sure.
23 MS. STERNHEIM: I think the fact that the jury has
24 mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New
25 York is not just cleared up by referring them to the
2 know, has to deal with the violation of New York law. And they
3 are talking about flights to New Mexico; and can she be found
4 guilty on the second element of Count Four regarding these
5 flights to New Mexico.
6 So I think we may have to respond to the jury on that
7 score as well, which is the fact that they have to be
8 considering New York events for Count Four, rather than -- or
9 violations of New York law, which wouldn't occur in New Mexico
10 for there to be a conviction on Count Four.
11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we
12 proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the
13 instruction, which says just that. The second paragraph of
14 that same instruction reminds the jury, as the instruction does
15 throughout, that we're talking about New York Penal Law,
16 Section 130.55. And so I think our proposal remains the same
17 that they be referred to the entirety of the instruction, which
18 includes that language, among other aspects of this particular
19 element.
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, may I be heard for a moment?
22 THE COURT: Sure.
23 MS. STERNHEIM: I think the fact that the jury has
24 mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New
25 York is not just cleared up by referring them to the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014708
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document