You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
575 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
575 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two lawyers (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) about a jury's confusion. The jury appears to be mistaking New Mexico law for New York law regarding Count Four. Despite Mr. Everdell's concerns about ongoing confusion, the judge decides to simply refer the jury back to the original charge, which Ms. Moe argues clearly specifies a New York statute.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Counsel |
Speaker in a court proceeding, arguing that the jury charge is clear about the applicability of New York law.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Counsel |
Speaker in a court proceeding, expressing concern about potential jury confusion.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the proceeding, making the decision to refer the jury back to the original charge.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion took place regarding a jury's question about Count Four. The court decided to refer the jury back to the original instruction to clarify that New York law, not New Mexico law, applies.
Courtroom (implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the jurisdiction whose law applies to Count Four of the jury charge.
|
|
|
Mentioned as a source of potential confusion for the jury, as its law does not apply to the charge.
|
Relationships (3)
Ms. Moe addresses the court as "your Honor" and presents legal arguments for the court's consideration.
Mr. Everdell presents arguments to the court, expressing a differing opinion on how to handle the jury's question, which the court ultimately overrules.
They are both counsel in the same proceeding, presenting opposing viewpoints on how to address the jury's confusion, suggesting they are on opposite sides of the case.
Key Quotes (4)
"Clearly they are making an error concerning which state begins with "New.""Source
— Unknown (likely counsel)
(Beginning of the transcript, explaining the perceived source of the jury's confusion.)
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
Quote #1
"The only illegal sexual activity identified in the entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York."Source
— MS. MOE
(Arguing that there should be no confusion as the charge is specific to New York law.)
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
Quote #2
"I just don't understand the confidence about how there can be no possible confusion --"Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Expressing doubt that simply referring the jury back to the charge will resolve the confusion.)
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
Quote #3
"This conversation is stopping. My decision is to refer them back to this charge, because it is a proper instruction on the second element to Count Four."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's final ruling on the matter, ending the debate.)
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,442 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 23 of 29 3140
LCRVMAXT
LCRVMAXT
1 instruction. Clearly they are making an error concerning which
2 state begins with "New." And I suggest that if the Court
3 wishes to refer them to the charge, the Court also clears up
4 the fact that Count Four requires a violation of New York law,
5 not New Mexico law.
6 THE COURT: That's certainly why we should refer them
7 to the whole charge. That's what lines 7 through 10 make
8 clear.
9 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
10 The only illegal sexual activity identified in the
11 entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There
12 cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular
13 charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as
14 well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New
15 Mexico; so there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly
16 that reason.
17 MR. EVERDELL: I just don't understand the confidence
18 about how there can be no possible confusion --
19 THE COURT: This conversation is stopping.
20 My decision is to refer them back to this charge,
21 because it is a proper instruction on the second element to
22 Count Four. I do not know what this question means. It's too
23 difficult to parse factually and legally what they're asking.
24 So the only option in those circumstances is to direct them
25 back to the count.
2 state begins with "New." And I suggest that if the Court
3 wishes to refer them to the charge, the Court also clears up
4 the fact that Count Four requires a violation of New York law,
5 not New Mexico law.
6 THE COURT: That's certainly why we should refer them
7 to the whole charge. That's what lines 7 through 10 make
8 clear.
9 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
10 The only illegal sexual activity identified in the
11 entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There
12 cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular
13 charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as
14 well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New
15 Mexico; so there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly
16 that reason.
17 MR. EVERDELL: I just don't understand the confidence
18 about how there can be no possible confusion --
19 THE COURT: This conversation is stopping.
20 My decision is to refer them back to this charge,
21 because it is a proper instruction on the second element to
22 Count Four. I do not know what this question means. It's too
23 difficult to parse factually and legally what they're asking.
24 So the only option in those circumstances is to direct them
25 back to the count.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014709
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document