DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
636 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
636 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal debate between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before a judge regarding the precise wording of jury instructions for a case involving interstate travel for criminal sexual activity. The core of the argument is whether the law requires a 'dominant purpose' or if 'one of the dominant purposes' is sufficient, with both sides citing legal precedents like the Miller case and authorities like Sand to support their positions.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Attorney |
An attorney arguing a point about jury instructions to the court.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The presiding judge in the proceeding, who summarizes a legal argument from the 'Miller' case.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
An attorney arguing a point about jury instructions, countering Mr. Rohrbach's argument.
|
| Sand | Legal Authority |
Cited as an authority who explained the confusion around the word "dominant" and who invented the language "significa...
|
| Judge Rakoff | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge who gave the charge in the 'Miller' case, which was deemed proper.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the firm that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument regarding jury instructions in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The discussion focuses on whether the purpose of interstate travel for a crime must be the 'dominant purpose' or 'one of the dominant purposes', referencing the Miller case and legal authority Sand.
Southern District Court (implied)
Relationships (3)
Mr. Rohrbach, an attorney, is addressing the judge as 'your Honor' during a legal proceeding.
Mr. Everdell, an attorney, is addressing the judge as 'your Honor' during a legal proceeding.
They are opposing attorneys presenting arguments to the court on the same legal issue.
Key Quotes (4)
"So the defendant's argument in Miller was that the prostitution or other criminal sexual activity must be the dominant purpose of the interstate travel rather than only one of the dominant purposes as the judge charged."Source
— THE COURT
(Summarizing the legal argument in the precedent case of Miller.)
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
Quote #1
"The use of the word "dominant" is a source of confusion, as Sand has explained."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Arguing against the use of the word "dominant" in the proposed jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
Quote #2
"Well, your Honor, on that point, the language "significant or motivating purpose" is completely invented by Sand, right, and now people have used it because Sand is an authority in this area, but that does not -- that did not come from case law."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Countering the reliance on Sand's terminology by stating it is not derived from case law.)
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
Quote #3
"So I actually think there is more support in the case law for the "one dominant"Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Concluding his argument in favor of the 'one dominant purpose' instruction, citing support from case law.)
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,979 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 31 of 95
LCI1MAX1
LCI1MAX1
1 MR. ROHRBACH: I've only read portions of it too, but
2 that's my quick read.
3 THE COURT: So the defendant's argument in Miller was
4 that the prostitution or other criminal sexual activity must be
5 the dominant purpose of the interstate travel rather than only
6 one of the dominant purposes as the judge charged.
7 MR. ROHRBACH: In fact, your Honor, I think in light
8 of that conclusion, the final sentence of the defense's
9 proposed instruction would be suggestive of error because the
10 point is that -- or at least creates the very confusion that
11 arose in Miller about whether it has to be one of the dominant
12 purposes. The use of the word "dominant" is a source of
13 confusion, as Sand has explained.
14 MR. EVERDELL: Well, your Honor, on that point, the
15 language "significant or motivating purpose" is completely
16 invented by Sand, right, and now people have used it because
17 Sand is an authority in this area, but that does not -- that
18 did not come from case law. That is Sand's proposal to deal
19 with the issue of the dominant purpose versus one dominant
20 purpose. There is, however, case law in many circuits where
21 the instruction "one dominant purpose" is accepted instruction,
22 and the Miller case endorses that instruction because that was
23 the charge that was given by Judge Rakoff and they said it was
24 perfectly proper to give that charge. So I actually think
25 there is more support in the case law for the "one dominant
2 that's my quick read.
3 THE COURT: So the defendant's argument in Miller was
4 that the prostitution or other criminal sexual activity must be
5 the dominant purpose of the interstate travel rather than only
6 one of the dominant purposes as the judge charged.
7 MR. ROHRBACH: In fact, your Honor, I think in light
8 of that conclusion, the final sentence of the defense's
9 proposed instruction would be suggestive of error because the
10 point is that -- or at least creates the very confusion that
11 arose in Miller about whether it has to be one of the dominant
12 purposes. The use of the word "dominant" is a source of
13 confusion, as Sand has explained.
14 MR. EVERDELL: Well, your Honor, on that point, the
15 language "significant or motivating purpose" is completely
16 invented by Sand, right, and now people have used it because
17 Sand is an authority in this area, but that does not -- that
18 did not come from case law. That is Sand's proposal to deal
19 with the issue of the dominant purpose versus one dominant
20 purpose. There is, however, case law in many circuits where
21 the instruction "one dominant purpose" is accepted instruction,
22 and the Miller case endorses that instruction because that was
23 the charge that was given by Judge Rakoff and they said it was
24 perfectly proper to give that charge. So I actually think
25 there is more support in the case law for the "one dominant
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016957
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document