DOJ-OGR-00017324.jpg
592 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
592 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. They are debating how to respond to a confusing note from the jury, as the placement of a comma in the jury's question drastically changes its meaning regarding responsibility for a flight to New Mexico. Ms. Moe argues that the note is too ambiguous to answer directly and suggests referring the jury back to their instructions.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, presiding over the legal discussion.
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, participating in the legal discussion with the court.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing that a jury note is confusing.
|
| your Honor | Judge |
A term of address used by Ms. Moe when speaking to the judge (THE COURT).
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between the judge and two attorneys (Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe) about how to interpret and respond to a confusing note sent by the jury.
Courtroom
A 'return flight' and a 'flight to New Mexico' are discussed as the subject of a jury's question.
New Mexico
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a potential location related to a flight.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the destination of a flight.
|
Relationships (2)
Ms. Menninger is an attorney arguing a point before the judge (THE COURT) in a legal proceeding.
Key Quotes (3)
"That would be an entirely different meaning to the question."Source
— THE COURT
(Responding to a hypothetical rephrasing of the jury's question, highlighting the ambiguity caused by a comma.)
DOJ-OGR-00017324.jpg
Quote #1
"And I think at the point at which we're parsing jury notes like statutes this finely, I think it illustrates the point that this note is confusing; that we're not sure what the jury is asking about either factually or legally."Source
— MS. MOE
(Arguing that the detailed grammatical analysis required to understand the jury's note proves its ambiguity.)
DOJ-OGR-00017324.jpg
Quote #2
"But I think when we are parsing commas this finely in a note that is unclear, it's unclear which clauses are modifying which clauses, or which flights we're even talking about, I think it's far too confusing to give simple answers here."Source
— MS. MOE
(Concluding her argument that the jury's note is too ambiguous to be answered directly.)
DOJ-OGR-00017324.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,513 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 20 of 29 3137
LCRVMAXT
LCRVMAXT
1 Mexico rather than the place where they did put the comma, then
2 that would have told us, can't she be responsible for aiding in
3 the transportation of the return flight, comma, but not the
4 flight to New Mexico, comma. That would then put the where/if
5 the intent was --
6 THE COURT: That would be an entirely different
7 meaning to the question.
8 MS. MENNINGER: I think so.
9 THE COURT: No, I agree. What I don't know is I don't
10 know what they meant and I don't know how much weight to put on
11 that comma placement; because, as you've noted, that precise
12 sentence without that comma has an entirely different meaning.
13 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
14 And I think at the point at which we're parsing jury
15 notes like statutes this finely, I think it illustrates the
16 point that this note is confusing; that we're not sure what the
17 jury is asking about either factually or legally.
18 The question is about the second element; and so we
19 think the proper course is to refer the jury to those
20 particular instructions. And the jury is free to send a
21 clarifying note, if they wish to do so. But I think when we
22 are parsing commas this finely in a note that is unclear, it's
23 unclear which clauses are modifying which clauses, or which
24 flights we're even talking about, I think it's far too
25 confusing to give simple answers here.
2 that would have told us, can't she be responsible for aiding in
3 the transportation of the return flight, comma, but not the
4 flight to New Mexico, comma. That would then put the where/if
5 the intent was --
6 THE COURT: That would be an entirely different
7 meaning to the question.
8 MS. MENNINGER: I think so.
9 THE COURT: No, I agree. What I don't know is I don't
10 know what they meant and I don't know how much weight to put on
11 that comma placement; because, as you've noted, that precise
12 sentence without that comma has an entirely different meaning.
13 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
14 And I think at the point at which we're parsing jury
15 notes like statutes this finely, I think it illustrates the
16 point that this note is confusing; that we're not sure what the
17 jury is asking about either factually or legally.
18 The question is about the second element; and so we
19 think the proper course is to refer the jury to those
20 particular instructions. And the jury is free to send a
21 clarifying note, if they wish to do so. But I think when we
22 are parsing commas this finely in a note that is unclear, it's
23 unclear which clauses are modifying which clauses, or which
24 flights we're even talking about, I think it's far too
25 confusing to give simple answers here.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017324
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document