DOJ-OGR-00010558.jpg
787 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
787 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against the defendant's motions regarding sentencing. The prosecution asserts that the 2004 Sentencing Manual should apply, citing trial testimony that the conspiracy extended past 2004, and refutes the defendant's claim of having left the conspiracy and her association with Epstein in 2002. The document also notes that the government is prepared to present additional evidence, a message book seized by the Palm Beach Police Department, at the sentencing hearing.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Mentioned for her trial testimony that the offense conduct ran past 2004.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of the defendant's claim that she broke away from him in 2002.
|
|
| Martinez | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 242 (2d Cir. 2005)'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as having increased the applicable penalties for the offenses.
|
| Sentencing Commission | government agency |
Mentioned as having increased the applicable penalties for the offenses.
|
| Palm Beach Police Department | government agency |
Mentioned as the agency that seized a message book.
|
| FBI | government agency |
Mentioned as having investigated and taken custody of a message book.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A message book was seized by the Palm Beach Police Department and transferred to the FBI.
Palm Beach
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Inferred from the 'Palm Beach Police Department'.
|
Relationships (1)
The document mentions the defendant's claim that she 'broke away from Epstein in 2002', indicating a prior association.
Key Quotes (4)
"goals of sentencing are not served"Source
— defendant
(A claim made by the defendant regarding the application of the 2004 Manual.)
DOJ-OGR-00010558.jpg
Quote #1
"moved on"Source
— sole defense witness
(Testimony from a defense witness stating that the defendant had 'moved on' in 2002.)
DOJ-OGR-00010558.jpg
Quote #2
"once it has been established that there existed a conspiracy of which the defendant was a member, [her] membership is presumed to continue unless and until the defendant proves that the conspiracy was terminated or that [she] took"Source
— The Court/Legal Precedent
(A legal principle cited to argue against the defendant's claim of leaving the conspiracy.)
DOJ-OGR-00010558.jpg
Quote #3
"the right of confrontation does not apply to the sentencing context and does not prohibit the consideration of hearsay testimony in sentencing proceedings."Source
— United States v. Martinez
(A quote from a legal case establishing that hearsay is admissible at sentencing.)
DOJ-OGR-00010558.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,331 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 23 of 55
employees was unnecessary. The book is authentic, and the defendant offers no basis for concluding otherwise.²
The Court should reject the defendant’s argument and make its determination regarding the final date of the conspiracy based on the language of the Indictment (which plainly encompasses all of 2004) and the trial testimony of Carolyn (who testified that the offense conduct ran past 2004). The 2004 Manual applies.
3. The Court Should Apply the 2004 Manual
The defendant also claims that the “goals of sentencing are not served” by applying the 2004 Manual. (Def. Mem. 8 (capitalization removed)). Not so. The law plainly provides that the 2004 Manual applies here, and it would be unjust to provide a substantial break in the Sentencing Guidelines for a defendant who engaged in an extensive child exploitation scheme, especially when both Congress and the Sentencing Commission have since further increased the applicable penalties for these offenses.
Moreover, the Court should not credit the defendant’s claim that she broke away from Epstein in 2002, based on the testimony of a sole defense witness who said that the defendant had “moved on” in 2002. (Def. Mem. 9). To be clear, “once it has been established that there existed a conspiracy of which the defendant was a member, [her] membership is presumed to continue unless and until the defendant proves that the conspiracy was terminated or that [she] took
² In any event, the Government will bring the message book to sentencing so that the Court may examine it if it deems such an assessment necessary. If the Court desires additional testimony in the record, a case agent would be prepared to testify at the sentencing hearing based on the FBI’s investigation that this message book was seized by the Palm Beach Police Department along with the other three message books admitted at trial, and was transferred into the custody of the FBI, which has maintained it ever since. It is well established that hearsay is admissible at sentencing. See United States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 242 (2d Cir. 2005) (“the right of confrontation does not apply to the sentencing context and does not prohibit the consideration of hearsay testimony in sentencing proceedings.”).
21
DOJ-OGR-00010558
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document