DOJ-OGR-00014705.jpg
554 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
554 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Menninger argues that for a conviction on a specific count, the jury does not need to find that a flight was specifically to New Mexico, as the indictment only requires that the flight's purpose was to engage in illegal sexual activity, regardless of the destination. The judge questions this position for clarity and ultimately agrees with her interpretation.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MENNINGER | Attorney (implied) |
Speaker in a court proceeding, arguing a legal point about an indictment.
|
| THE COURT | Judge (implied) |
Speaker in a court proceeding, questioning Ms. Menninger on her legal position.
|
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 legal argument between Ms. Menninger and The Court regarding the interpretation of an indictment, specifically whether a flight destination had to be New Mexico for a conviction.
Courtroom (implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a potential flight destination in the context of an indictment.
|
|
|
Mentioned as an example of an alternative flight destination.
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a formal legal argument between a judge (The Court) and an attorney (Ms. Menninger) during a court proceeding.
Key Quotes (3)
"Is it your legal position that the jury must conclude, in order to convict on this count, that the defendant had to aid in the transportation of the flight to New Mexico?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge asking for clarification on Ms. Menninger's legal argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00014705.jpg
Quote #1
"I don't believe that -- no, no, it is not my contention."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Responding to the judge's question about whether the flight had to be to New Mexico.)
DOJ-OGR-00014705.jpg
Quote #2
"And the reason is the indictment does not specify New Mexico. It could be a flight to New York, for example. It could be a flight to New Mexico. It could be any place, the purpose for which was to engage in illegal sexual activity. So it doesn't have to be to New Mexico."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Explaining her legal position that the specific destination is not a required element for conviction under the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00014705.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,370 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 19 of 29 3136
LCRVMAXT
LCRVMAXT
1 THE COURT: Wow.
2 MS. MENNINGER: And they are asking, Can we find her
3 responsible for the return flight, but not that flight to New
4 Mexico, where the intent was to engage in sexual activity.
5 That's why I think they have written it with the commas as they
6 are.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MS. MENNINGER: So they have to be directed --
9 THE COURT: Let me try again. Can I get a yes or a no
10 to my question? Is it your legal position that the jury must
11 conclude, in order to convict on this count, that the defendant
12 had to aid in the transportation of the flight to New Mexico?
13 MS. MENNINGER: I don't believe that -- no, no, it is
14 not my contention.
15 THE COURT: Thank you.
16 MS. MENNINGER: And the reason is the indictment does
17 not specify New Mexico. It could be a flight to New York, for
18 example. It could be a flight to New Mexico. It could be any
19 place, the purpose for which was to engage in illegal sexual
20 activity. So it doesn't have to be to New Mexico.
21 THE COURT: I agree with that.
22 This is why it's difficult to parse the question
23 without assuming a variety of meanings, and I'm trying to track
24 your comma argument.
25 MS. MENNINGER: Had they placed the comma after New
2 MS. MENNINGER: And they are asking, Can we find her
3 responsible for the return flight, but not that flight to New
4 Mexico, where the intent was to engage in sexual activity.
5 That's why I think they have written it with the commas as they
6 are.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MS. MENNINGER: So they have to be directed --
9 THE COURT: Let me try again. Can I get a yes or a no
10 to my question? Is it your legal position that the jury must
11 conclude, in order to convict on this count, that the defendant
12 had to aid in the transportation of the flight to New Mexico?
13 MS. MENNINGER: I don't believe that -- no, no, it is
14 not my contention.
15 THE COURT: Thank you.
16 MS. MENNINGER: And the reason is the indictment does
17 not specify New Mexico. It could be a flight to New York, for
18 example. It could be a flight to New Mexico. It could be any
19 place, the purpose for which was to engage in illegal sexual
20 activity. So it doesn't have to be to New Mexico.
21 THE COURT: I agree with that.
22 This is why it's difficult to parse the question
23 without assuming a variety of meanings, and I'm trying to track
24 your comma argument.
25 MS. MENNINGER: Had they placed the comma after New
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014705
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document