DOJ-OGR-00014718.jpg
563 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
563 KB
Summary
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where the judge addresses a letter from the defense. Ms. Moe, likely a prosecutor, points out that the letter rehashes an argument the Court already rejected the previous day. The judge affirms this, stating that the legal instructions given to the jury were correct and remain so, thereby dismissing the defense's implicit challenge.
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned by Ms. Moe as having its door open.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"With respect to the defendant's letter, this is essentially the same argument that the defense advanced yesterday, which the Court carefully considered and rejected. Nothing has changed between then and now."Source
— Ms. Moe
(Responding to the Court's mention of the defense's letter, stating that it raises a previously rejected argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00014718.jpg
Quote #1
"In particular, the defense's letter identifies no error in the instruction the Court referred the jury to nor could they. It was a correct legal instruction when the Court instructed the jury last week, it was a correct legal instruction when the Court referred the jury to it yesterday afternoon, and that it remains true."Source
— The Court
(A ruling from the judge affirming the correctness of the jury instructions and rejecting the defense's challenge.)
DOJ-OGR-00014718.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,354 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 16 3148
LCSCMAXI
LCSCMAXI
(Jury not present)
THE COURT: I received -- I think it was filed in the
wee hours, I didn't receive it until this morning, the
defense's followup letter taking a slightly different approach
to the jury's last note than what was argued in court.
wee hours, I didn't receive it until this morning, the
defense's followup letter taking a slightly different approach
to the jury's last note than what was argued in court.
I haven't heard from the government.
MS. MOE: I just noticed that the door to the jury
room is open.
room is open.
THE COURT: Thank you. To be clear, the jury is not
there.
there.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I meant the door to the
area that leads to the jury room. Just wanted to be cautious.
area that leads to the jury room. Just wanted to be cautious.
THE COURT: Thank you. Appreciate that.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. With respect to the
defendant's letter, this is essentially the same argument that
the defense advanced yesterday, which the Court carefully
considered and rejected. Nothing has changed between then and
now.
defendant's letter, this is essentially the same argument that
the defense advanced yesterday, which the Court carefully
considered and rejected. Nothing has changed between then and
now.
In particular, the defense's letter identifies no
error in the instruction the Court referred the jury to nor
could they. It was a correct legal instruction when the Court
instructed the jury last week, it was a correct legal
instruction when the Court referred the jury to it yesterday
afternoon, and that it remains true. It was a thorough and
carefully considered instruction on the legal elements and
error in the instruction the Court referred the jury to nor
could they. It was a correct legal instruction when the Court
instructed the jury last week, it was a correct legal
instruction when the Court referred the jury to it yesterday
afternoon, and that it remains true. It was a thorough and
carefully considered instruction on the legal elements and
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014718
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document