DOJ-OGR-00011565.jpg
640 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
4
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
640 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing from July 22, 2022, discussing a defendant's conviction for sex trafficking a victim named Carolyn. The court refutes the defense's argument against an "undue influence" sentencing enhancement, finding that the defendant exploited Carolyn's financial needs for her drug addiction and newborn son. The court concludes that taking advantage of a victim's financial vulnerability constitutes undue influence, referencing testimony from Carolyn and other victims (Jane, Annie) who received payments.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Smith | Party in a court case |
Mentioned in the citation of a Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Smith.
|
| Carolyn | Victim |
A victim of sex trafficking by the defendant. She was paid to give Epstein sexualized massages and was considered und...
|
| Virginia Roberts |
Mentioned as the person who brought Carolyn and Melissa into the situation.
|
|
| Melissa | Victim |
A victim who was brought by Virginia Roberts and was paid.
|
| Jane | Victim |
A victim who testified that she received money and gifts during her abuse.
|
| Annie | Victim |
A victim who testified that she received money and gifts during her abuse.
|
| Epstein |
The person Carolyn was paid to give sexualized massages to. There was a significant age gap between him and Carolyn.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ninth Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned as the court for the case United States v. Smith.
|
| The Court | government agency |
The court presiding over the current case, which finds that victims were paid.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Virginia Roberts brought Carolyn and Melissa into the situation.
Relationships (4)
The jury in Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn to participate in commercial sex acts.
Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized massages... The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far exceeded ten years.
Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa...
Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa...
Key Quotes (1)
"serve unique purposes under the Guidelines."Source
— United States v. Smith case
(A quote from a Ninth Circuit case explaining the purpose of the 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue influence enhancement.)
DOJ-OGR-00011565.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,540 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 46 of 101
M6SQmaxl
M6SQmaxl
Cir. 2021) (summary order). Similar conclusion, United States
v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That
case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue
influence enhancement "serve unique purposes under the
Guidelines."
v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That
case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue
influence enhancement "serve unique purposes under the
Guidelines."
The defense argues that because the enhancement
applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a
commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in
Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn
to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that
Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was
brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims,
including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received
money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the
enhancement.
applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a
commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in
Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn
to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that
Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was
brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims,
including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received
money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the
enhancement.
The defendant argues Carolyn was not unduly influenced
to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless.
The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far
exceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the
resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note
7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized
massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction.
Later, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money
for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of
a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll
to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless.
The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far
exceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the
resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note
7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized
massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction.
Later, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money
for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of
a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011565
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document