DOJ-OGR-00017340.jpg
595 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
595 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between defense counsel Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell is concerned the jury might convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, based on conduct that occurred solely in New Mexico for a charge under New York law and requests a supplemental instruction. The judge denies the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that the defense missed an earlier opportunity to limit the related testimony.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney/Counsel |
Arguing a point of law to the court regarding jury instructions.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the case, responding to Mr. Everdell's arguments and rejecting a proposed jury instruction.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the person who may be convicted on Count Four based on conduct related to New Mexico.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument between counsel (Mr. Everdell) and the judge (The Court) regarding jury instructions in the case of Ms. Maxwell.
Courtroom
A 'charging conference' was held where the defense requested the inclusion of travel from Florida to New York in the jury instructions.
Courtroom
Travel from Florida to New York is mentioned as a required fact to be proven for certain counts.
Between Florida and New York
Travel to and from New Mexico is mentioned as part of the conduct being considered by the jury.
New Mexico
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Central to the legal argument about whether conduct occurring solely in this state can form the basis for a convictio...
|
|
|
The jurisdiction whose law is being discussed in relation to a potential violation.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the origin point for travel to New York, a fact requested for inclusion in jury instructions.
|
Relationships (1)
The document shows a formal, adversarial dialogue between a judge and a defense attorney during a court proceeding, discussing points of law and procedure.
Key Quotes (2)
"I'm not going to give them an incorrect supplemental instruction."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's direct refusal to issue the supplemental jury instruction as requested by the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00017340.jpg
Quote #1
"I think the jury is saying that they may convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely relates to New Mexico."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(The defense attorney's interpretation of a note from the jury, which is the basis for his request for a new instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00017340.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,545 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7 of 16 3153
LCSCMAXI
LCSCMAXI
1 conduct that occurs solely in New Mexico, travels to and from
2 New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a
3 violation of New York law --
4 THE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a
5 basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong
6 as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to
7 exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction
8 with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe
9 for all of the reasons we've articulated.
10 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we
11 did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of
12 travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the
13 required facts to be proven for those counts.
14 In any event, I think this is a time that calls for a
15 supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has
16 rejected --
17 THE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect
18 supplemental instruction.
19 MR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction
20 that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft
21 a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they may
22 convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely
23 relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What
24 I am saying is if all they had -- which is what I think the note
25 is saying -- is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual
2 New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a
3 violation of New York law --
4 THE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a
5 basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong
6 as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to
7 exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction
8 with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe
9 for all of the reasons we've articulated.
10 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we
11 did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of
12 travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the
13 required facts to be proven for those counts.
14 In any event, I think this is a time that calls for a
15 supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has
16 rejected --
17 THE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect
18 supplemental instruction.
19 MR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction
20 that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft
21 a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they may
22 convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely
23 relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What
24 I am saying is if all they had -- which is what I think the note
25 is saying -- is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017340
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document