DOJ-OGR-00016979.jpg
537 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
537 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. They are discussing specific edits to jury instructions, focusing on the wording related to a person named Jane being under the age of 17. Mr. Everdell also raises an objection to the jury being allowed to consider another person's (Annie's) testimony as an overt act in a conspiracy charge that violates New York law.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane |
A person who was allegedly under the age of 17, as discussed in the context of an indictment and jury instructions.
|
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
A participant in the court proceeding, likely an attorney, discussing jury instructions with the court.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A participant in the court proceeding, presiding over the case and discussing jury instructions with Mr. Everdell.
|
| Annie |
A person whose testimony is being considered as a potential overt act in a conspiracy.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between the Court (judge) and Mr. Everdell regarding the wording of jury instructions (specifically Instruction 36) for a case. The discussion focuses on the age of a person named Jane and whether the testimony of another person, Annie, can be considered an overt act in a conspiracy.
Courtroom in the Southern District
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of a conspiracy being a violation of New York law.
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a formal court proceeding where Mr. Everdell (likely an attorney) is addressing the judge ('THE COURT' and 'your Honor') to discuss legal matters related to a case.
Key Quotes (3)
"I'm going to change "reads" to "alleges," and then line 12, we're going to say "When Jane was under the age of 17," correct?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge is clarifying the specific changes being made to the jury instructions regarding Jane's age.)
DOJ-OGR-00016979.jpg
Quote #1
"For this one, I would propose that we simply, you know, eliminate the age, if they want to keep this as an overt act and if we think it's proper for the jury to consider Annie's testimony as a potential overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy..."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Mr. Everdell is proposing an alternative wording for the jury instruction and raising an objection about considering Annie's testimony as an overt act.)
DOJ-OGR-00016979.jpg
Quote #2
"So my first objection is that I don't think you can actually consider Annie's testimony as the overt act if what's described there is"Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Mr. Everdell is stating his formal objection to using Annie's testimony as evidence of an overt act in the conspiracy.)
DOJ-OGR-00016979.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,634 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 53 of 95
LCI1MAX1
2791
LCI1MAX1
2791
1 Jane, Jane was -- we would say the indictment alleges that Jane
2 was under the age of 17, in both 1 and 2.
3 THE COURT: All right. So let me just --
4 MR. EVERDELL: Yeah.
5 THE COURT: Hang on. So this is Instruction 36,
6 line 11.
7 MR. EVERDELL: Correct.
8 THE COURT: Page 49. I'm going to change "reads" to
9 "alleges," and then line 12, we're going to say "When Jane was
10 under the age of 17," correct?
11 MR. EVERDELL: That's correct.
12 THE COURT: So that's line 12, subbing 17 for 18.
13 And then the next instance of that is line 14.
14 MR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: "When Jane was under the age of 17."
16 MR. EVERDELL: Mm-hmm.
17 THE COURT: And then we get to line 16.
18 MR. EVERDELL: For this one, I would propose that we
19 simply, you know, eliminate the age, if they want to keep this
20 as an overt act and if we think it's proper for the jury to
21 consider Annie's testimony as a potential overt act in
22 furtherance of the conspiracy, even though the goal of the
23 conspiracy is a violation of New York law. So my first
24 objection is that I don't think you can actually consider
25 Annie's testimony as the overt act if what's described there is
2 was under the age of 17, in both 1 and 2.
3 THE COURT: All right. So let me just --
4 MR. EVERDELL: Yeah.
5 THE COURT: Hang on. So this is Instruction 36,
6 line 11.
7 MR. EVERDELL: Correct.
8 THE COURT: Page 49. I'm going to change "reads" to
9 "alleges," and then line 12, we're going to say "When Jane was
10 under the age of 17," correct?
11 MR. EVERDELL: That's correct.
12 THE COURT: So that's line 12, subbing 17 for 18.
13 And then the next instance of that is line 14.
14 MR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: "When Jane was under the age of 17."
16 MR. EVERDELL: Mm-hmm.
17 THE COURT: And then we get to line 16.
18 MR. EVERDELL: For this one, I would propose that we
19 simply, you know, eliminate the age, if they want to keep this
20 as an overt act and if we think it's proper for the jury to
21 consider Annie's testimony as a potential overt act in
22 furtherance of the conspiracy, even though the goal of the
23 conspiracy is a violation of New York law. So my first
24 objection is that I don't think you can actually consider
25 Annie's testimony as the overt act if what's described there is
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016979
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document