DOJ-OGR-00021566.jpg
518 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
518 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, detailing a legal discussion between a judge and attorneys. The government, represented by Ms. Moe, argues that the 2004 Manual is applicable because the offense in question continued past November 1, 2004, citing trial testimony. The judge reframes the issue, focusing the argument on whether there is a preponderance of evidence of conspiratorial conduct within the specific two-month window of November and December 2004.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, asking questions, and framing the legal issue for the attorneys.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
An attorney addressing the Court as 'your Honor'.
|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney |
An attorney presenting the government's argument to the Court.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | Government agency |
Mentioned as the party Ms. Moe is representing, which is confident the 2004 Manual applies.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, indicating they are the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2004-11-01
A key date mentioned in the argument, with Ms. Moe stating that testimony from a crime victim established the offense conduct continued past this date.
crime victim (unnamed)
2023-06-29
A legal argument took place regarding the applicability of the 2004 Manual based on the timeline of an offense.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (2)
Mr. Everdell addresses the Court as 'your Honor' in a formal legal setting.
Key Quotes (3)
"The government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in this case."Source
— MS. MOE
(Stating the government's legal position at the start of her argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00021566.jpg
Quote #1
"The testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1, 2004."Source
— MS. MOE
(Citing evidence from the trial record to support the government's argument about the offense's duration.)
DOJ-OGR-00021566.jpg
Quote #2
"It seems to me the question is can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time window, basically November and December 2004."Source
— THE COURT
(Reframing the legal issue for the parties, focusing the discussion on a specific two-month period.)
DOJ-OGR-00021566.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,469 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page136 of 217
SA-390
21
M6SQmax1
1 persuasive -- along with the other sources and opinions we've
2 cited, it's persuasive authority for the fact this is a jury
3 decision, not a Court determination.
4 THE COURT: Are you leaving that argument?
5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: We'll do a little back-and-forth so I have
7 everybody's arguments in mind. Thank you.
8 Go ahead, Ms. Moe.
9 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
10 The government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in
11 this case. I believe we did engage with the ex post facto
12 issue thoroughly in our brief. The question is whether the
13 factual record at trial establishes that the offense continued
14 throughout the duration of 2004, which it emphatically did.
15 The testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial
16 establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1,
17 2004.
18 THE COURT: So I think the framing of the question
19 here is very important and its technical -- this whole
20 discussion is very technical. It seems to me the question is
21 can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence
22 that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time
23 window, basically November and December 2004. That is what's
24 in issue, and the question is what the trial record establishes
25 with respect to that two-month window.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•••
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021566
SA-390
21
M6SQmax1
1 persuasive -- along with the other sources and opinions we've
2 cited, it's persuasive authority for the fact this is a jury
3 decision, not a Court determination.
4 THE COURT: Are you leaving that argument?
5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: We'll do a little back-and-forth so I have
7 everybody's arguments in mind. Thank you.
8 Go ahead, Ms. Moe.
9 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
10 The government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in
11 this case. I believe we did engage with the ex post facto
12 issue thoroughly in our brief. The question is whether the
13 factual record at trial establishes that the offense continued
14 throughout the duration of 2004, which it emphatically did.
15 The testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial
16 establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1,
17 2004.
18 THE COURT: So I think the framing of the question
19 here is very important and its technical -- this whole
20 discussion is very technical. It seems to me the question is
21 can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence
22 that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time
23 window, basically November and December 2004. That is what's
24 in issue, and the question is what the trial record establishes
25 with respect to that two-month window.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•••
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021566
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document