DOJ-OGR-00021584.jpg
565 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
565 KB
Summary
This legal document is a judicial analysis determining the applicable sentencing guidelines for a defendant. The judge concludes that the offense occurred between November 1, 2004, and early 2005, based on an evaluation of evidence like message pads, thereby mandating the use of the 2003 guidelines. The document then begins to address the defendant's objections to specific sentencing enhancements related to a sex crime conviction.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of his house: "Epstein's house after November 2004 before she turned 18."
|
|
| Carolyn |
Mentioned in the context of her age: "after Carolyn turned 18."
|
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal analysis regarding sentencing guidelines and enhancements.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The government | government agency |
Mentioned for its reliance on evidence in the case: "The government's reliance on two additional pads..."
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting agency.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a location relevant to the timing of events: "Epstein's house after November 2004 before she turned 18."
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that an event involving Carolyn occurred at "Epstein's house after November 2004 before she turned 18."
The document details a legal proceeding where the government is the prosecuting party against the defendant, whose sentencing is being determined.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,648 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page154 of 217
SA-408
39
M6SQmax1
SA-408
39
M6SQmax1
1 Epstein's house after November 2004 before she turned 18.
2 Message pads entered at trial show contact only before
3 November 1.
4 The government's reliance on two additional pads that
5 were not entered into evidence doesn't change my analysis. The
6 first message GX-4B, it's undated, and the context does not
7 give sufficient confidence that it came after November 1. The
8 other message pad is dated March 1, 2005, which falls outside
9 the scope of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment, and
10 after Carolyn turned 18. Because I cannot on this record find
11 by a preponderance of the evidence that the offense continued
12 during that two-month window after November 1, 2004, and before
13 early 2005, I must apply the 2003 guidelines. Because I find
14 that the date of the offense was not after November 1, 2004, I
15 do not address the defendant's alternative argument that a jury
16 must decide if the 2004 Guidelines apply.
17 Within the Guidelines themselves, the defendant
18 objects to the application of three enhancements in the PSR.
19 She takes issue first with 4B1.5(b). The enhancement
20 statements that the offense level is increased by five if:
21 One, the offense of conviction is a covered sex crime; two,
22 4B1.5(a) for prior convictions does not apply; three, the
23 defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited
24 sexual conduct. All three requirements are met: The defendant
25 was convicted of a covered sex crime; she was not previously
2 Message pads entered at trial show contact only before
3 November 1.
4 The government's reliance on two additional pads that
5 were not entered into evidence doesn't change my analysis. The
6 first message GX-4B, it's undated, and the context does not
7 give sufficient confidence that it came after November 1. The
8 other message pad is dated March 1, 2005, which falls outside
9 the scope of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment, and
10 after Carolyn turned 18. Because I cannot on this record find
11 by a preponderance of the evidence that the offense continued
12 during that two-month window after November 1, 2004, and before
13 early 2005, I must apply the 2003 guidelines. Because I find
14 that the date of the offense was not after November 1, 2004, I
15 do not address the defendant's alternative argument that a jury
16 must decide if the 2004 Guidelines apply.
17 Within the Guidelines themselves, the defendant
18 objects to the application of three enhancements in the PSR.
19 She takes issue first with 4B1.5(b). The enhancement
20 statements that the offense level is increased by five if:
21 One, the offense of conviction is a covered sex crime; two,
22 4B1.5(a) for prior convictions does not apply; three, the
23 defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited
24 sexual conduct. All three requirements are met: The defendant
25 was convicted of a covered sex crime; she was not previously
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•••
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021584
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document