DOJ-OGR-00021567.jpg
528 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
528 KB
Summary
This court transcript excerpt from June 29, 2023, details a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge (The Court) regarding the end date of a criminal conspiracy. Ms. Moe contends that trial evidence proves the conspiracy continued through late 2004 and into 2005, while the Court questions whether this constitutes post-conspiracy conduct, as it extends beyond the 18th birthday of a person named Carolyn, whose minority status was apparently central to the charge.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Speaker arguing on behalf of the government about the end date of a conspiracy.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker questioning Ms. Moe's argument regarding post-conspiracy evidence.
|
| Carolyn |
Mentioned in relation to her 18th birthday, which is a key date for defining the conspiracy.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Referred to as a party in the legal case, likely the prosecution.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding, listed at the bottom of the page.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2004-11-01
A conspiracy is discussed, with specific reference to events in November and December of 2004.
conspirators
Key Quotes (2)
"And here the trial evidence was that the conspiracy was ongoing through all of 2004 and into 2005."Source
— MS. MOE
(Arguing that the conspiracy's duration is established by trial evidence, extending beyond the date in the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00021567.jpg
Quote #1
"It exceeds also the date of Carolyn's 18th birthday. And so it's not just what the indictment charges -- but by a conspiracy that is dependent here on Carolyn being under 18 for its continuation."Source
— THE COURT
(Challenging the government's argument by pointing out that the evidence presented extends beyond a key legal threshold for the conspiracy (Carolyn's age).)
DOJ-OGR-00021567.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,531 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page137 of 217
SA-391
22
M6SQmax1
1 To some extent, the government points, I think, to
2 post conspiracy conduct, and that concerns me. And so I would
3 like to ask you to draw my attention to what in the trial
4 record specifically speaks to November and December of 2004.
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
6 As a threshold matter, the government's understanding
7 that the case law is that the question is what is the end date
8 of the conspiracy. In other words, if the conspirators are
9 taking actions periodically over time, the question is what is
10 the last date of the conspiracy? What does the trial evidence
11 establish about the final date? And here the trial evidence
12 was that the conspiracy was ongoing through all of 2004 and
13 into 2005.
14 THE COURT: But to make that point, I think you're
15 relying on post conspiracy evidence.
16 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We're relying on evidence
17 that exceeds the date in the indictment, but it --
18 THE COURT: It exceeds also the date of Carolyn's 18th
19 birthday. And so it's not just what the indictment charges --
20 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: -- but by a conspiracy that is dependent
22 here on Carolyn being under 18 for its continuation. And so
23 that's why I see what you're pointing to as post conspiracy,
24 not only because it goes past what the indictment charged, but
25 because I think legally you're pointing to non-conspiracy
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•••
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021567
SA-391
22
M6SQmax1
1 To some extent, the government points, I think, to
2 post conspiracy conduct, and that concerns me. And so I would
3 like to ask you to draw my attention to what in the trial
4 record specifically speaks to November and December of 2004.
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
6 As a threshold matter, the government's understanding
7 that the case law is that the question is what is the end date
8 of the conspiracy. In other words, if the conspirators are
9 taking actions periodically over time, the question is what is
10 the last date of the conspiracy? What does the trial evidence
11 establish about the final date? And here the trial evidence
12 was that the conspiracy was ongoing through all of 2004 and
13 into 2005.
14 THE COURT: But to make that point, I think you're
15 relying on post conspiracy evidence.
16 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We're relying on evidence
17 that exceeds the date in the indictment, but it --
18 THE COURT: It exceeds also the date of Carolyn's 18th
19 birthday. And so it's not just what the indictment charges --
20 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: -- but by a conspiracy that is dependent
22 here on Carolyn being under 18 for its continuation. And so
23 that's why I see what you're pointing to as post conspiracy,
24 not only because it goes past what the indictment charged, but
25 because I think legally you're pointing to non-conspiracy
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.•••
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021567
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document