DOJ-OGR-00011541.jpg
604 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
604 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and a government attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the legal end date of a conspiracy, with the government arguing it extended through 2004 and into 2005. The judge expresses concern that the evidence cited by the government is 'post conspiracy' because it falls after the date in the indictment and, crucially, after a person named Carolyn turned 18, an event upon which the conspiracy's continuation was legally dependent.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
A speaker in the court transcript, arguing on behalf of the government's position regarding the conspiracy's end date.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the court transcript, questioning the government's use of post-conspiracy evidence.
|
| Carolyn |
A person whose 18th birthday is a key temporal marker in the discussion of the conspiracy's timeline.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2004-2005
A conspiracy that the government argues was ongoing through all of 2004 and into 2005.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporters, indicating the location of the court proceedings.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"It exceeds also the date of Carolyn's 18th birthday. And so it's not just what the indictment charges -- but by a conspiracy that is dependent here on Carolyn being under 18 for its continuation."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge explaining why the evidence being presented by the government is considered post-conspiracy.)
DOJ-OGR-00011541.jpg
Quote #1
"We're relying on evidence that exceeds the date in the indictment, but it --"Source
— MS. MOE
(The government's lawyer acknowledging that the evidence used falls outside the timeframe specified in the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00011541.jpg
Quote #2
"And here the trial evidence was that the conspiracy was ongoing through all of 2004 and into 2005."Source
— MS. MOE
(The government's lawyer stating their position on the duration of the conspiracy based on trial evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00011541.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,009 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 22 of 101 22
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 To some extent, the government points, I think, to
2 post conspiracy conduct, and that concerns me. And so I would
3 like to ask you to draw my attention to what in the trial
4 record specifically speaks to November and December of 2004.
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
6 As a threshold matter, the government's understanding
7 that the case law is that the question is what is the end date
8 of the conspiracy. In other words, if the conspirators are
9 taking actions periodically over time, the question is what is
10 the last date of the conspiracy? What does the trial evidence
11 establish about the final date? And here the trial evidence
12 was that the conspiracy was ongoing through all of 2004 and
13 into 2005.
14 THE COURT: But to make that point, I think you're
15 relying on post conspiracy evidence.
16 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We're relying on evidence
17 that exceeds the date in the indictment, but it --
18 THE COURT: It exceeds also the date of Carolyn's 18th
19 birthday. And so it's not just what the indictment charges --
20 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: -- but by a conspiracy that is dependent
22 here on Carolyn being under 18 for its continuation. And so
23 that's why I see what you're pointing to as post conspiracy,
24 not only because it goes past what the indictment charged, but
25 because I think legally you're pointing to non-conspiracy
2 post conspiracy conduct, and that concerns me. And so I would
3 like to ask you to draw my attention to what in the trial
4 record specifically speaks to November and December of 2004.
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
6 As a threshold matter, the government's understanding
7 that the case law is that the question is what is the end date
8 of the conspiracy. In other words, if the conspirators are
9 taking actions periodically over time, the question is what is
10 the last date of the conspiracy? What does the trial evidence
11 establish about the final date? And here the trial evidence
12 was that the conspiracy was ongoing through all of 2004 and
13 into 2005.
14 THE COURT: But to make that point, I think you're
15 relying on post conspiracy evidence.
16 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We're relying on evidence
17 that exceeds the date in the indictment, but it --
18 THE COURT: It exceeds also the date of Carolyn's 18th
19 birthday. And so it's not just what the indictment charges --
20 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: -- but by a conspiracy that is dependent
22 here on Carolyn being under 18 for its continuation. And so
23 that's why I see what you're pointing to as post conspiracy,
24 not only because it goes past what the indictment charged, but
25 because I think legally you're pointing to non-conspiracy
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
*
*
*
(212) 805-0300
*
*
*
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011541
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document