DOJ-OGR-00021604.jpg
582 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
582 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, where a government prosecutor is arguing for an above-guideline sentence for a female defendant. The prosecutor contends that the defendant's dishonesty, the severe and predatory nature of her sex-trafficking crimes, and the acknowledged inadequacy of the 2003 sentencing guidelines all justify a sentence longer than the calculated 188-235 months.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by the speaker during a court proceeding, being asked to impose an above-guideline sentence.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the body that calculated the sentencing guidelines and has the power to impose a sentence.
|
| the government | government agency |
The entity arguing for a sentence that is higher than the calculated guidelines.
|
| Sentencing Commission | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of the 2003 manual it enacted for sentencing guidelines.
|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as one of the bodies that has recognized the seriousness of sex crimes against children.
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Cited as having held that sentencing courts can vary upwards from the guidelines.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2023-06-29
A government representative makes an argument to a judge for imposing an above-guideline sentence on a female defendant for sex-trafficking offenses.
Courtroom
Your Honor
government representative
Key Quotes (3)
"Our country now recognizes how woefully inadequate the 2003 guidelines were, and the Supreme Court has expressly held that sentencing courts can vary upwards for exactly that reason."Source
— government representative
(Providing legal justification for requesting a sentence that exceeds the standard guidelines.)
DOJ-OGR-00021604.jpg
Quote #1
"This case calls out for an above-guideline sentence because of the breathtaking scope of the defendant's conduct, the length of her crimes, the number of victims, the vulnerability of her victims, the sophistication of the defendant's predatory conduct and the degree to which she psychologically manipulated her victims."Source
— government representative
(Summarizing the aggravating factors of the defendant's crimes to justify a harsher sentence.)
DOJ-OGR-00021604.jpg
Quote #2
"Her conduct was shockingly predatory, and it"Source
— government representative
(Describing the nature of the defendant's actions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021604.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,627 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page174 of 217
SA-428
59
M6SQmaxS1
crimes. She has not owned up to the truth. She has lied
repeatedly. She has been dishonest with the Court, and she has
made misrepresentations when it suits her. Your Honor, we
recognize that the Court has calculated the guidelines to be
188 to 235 months. That is far below the sentence that the
government believes is appropriate in this case. We recognize
that there are a small number of cases where the Court imposes
an above-guideline sentence. This is that case, your Honor.
In the almost 20 years since the 2003 manual was
enacted, our Sentencing Commission, our Congress, and our
country have all recognized just how serious sex crimes against
children are. Our country now recognizes how woefully
inadequate the 2003 guidelines were, and the Supreme Court has
expressly held that sentencing courts can vary upwards for
exactly that reason. Again, this is that case. This is
exactly that case. This is the time to impose an
above-guideline sentence. A guideline sentence in this case
would create unwarranted sentencing disparities with
individuals being sentenced today for sex-trafficking offenses.
This case calls out for an above-guideline sentence because of
the breathtaking scope of the defendant's conduct, the length
of her crimes, the number of victims, the vulnerability of her
victims, the sophistication of the defendant's predatory
conduct and the degree to which she psychologically manipulated
her victims. Her conduct was shockingly predatory, and it
SA-428
59
M6SQmaxS1
crimes. She has not owned up to the truth. She has lied
repeatedly. She has been dishonest with the Court, and she has
made misrepresentations when it suits her. Your Honor, we
recognize that the Court has calculated the guidelines to be
188 to 235 months. That is far below the sentence that the
government believes is appropriate in this case. We recognize
that there are a small number of cases where the Court imposes
an above-guideline sentence. This is that case, your Honor.
In the almost 20 years since the 2003 manual was
enacted, our Sentencing Commission, our Congress, and our
country have all recognized just how serious sex crimes against
children are. Our country now recognizes how woefully
inadequate the 2003 guidelines were, and the Supreme Court has
expressly held that sentencing courts can vary upwards for
exactly that reason. Again, this is that case. This is
exactly that case. This is the time to impose an
above-guideline sentence. A guideline sentence in this case
would create unwarranted sentencing disparities with
individuals being sentenced today for sex-trafficking offenses.
This case calls out for an above-guideline sentence because of
the breathtaking scope of the defendant's conduct, the length
of her crimes, the number of victims, the vulnerability of her
victims, the sophistication of the defendant's predatory
conduct and the degree to which she psychologically manipulated
her victims. Her conduct was shockingly predatory, and it
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021604
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document