DOJ-OGR-00005838.jpg
664 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
664 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a portion of a government motion arguing against the defense's proposed jury instruction. The Government contends that the defense's instruction regarding sexual activity with 'Minor Victim-3' is wrong on the law and that the relevance of United Kingdom's age of consent law should be disregarded. The document also states that the Government has already provided the defense with discovery materials, including the identities of alleged co-conspirators, making the defense's request to preclude their statements baseless.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Vasquez |
Mentioned in a case citation: United States v. Vasquez, 82 F.3d 574, 577 (2d Cir. 1996).
|
|
| Minor Victim-3 | Victim |
Mentioned in the context of sexual activity that the defense argues should not be considered illegal for the purposes...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referred to as the judicial body presiding over the case, responsible for providing instructions to the jury.
|
| Government | government agency |
Represents the prosecution in the case, arguing against the defense's proposed jury instructions and providing discov...
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in the case United States v. Vasquez.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-10-11
The Government provided the defense with comprehensive Jencks Act material for trial witnesses and its exhibits, along with a letter.
Government
defense
The document discusses arguments and evidence to be presented at an upcoming trial, including the Government's intention to argue certain individuals are co-conspirators.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in relation to its law on the age of consent, which the Government argues is irrelevant to the case.
|
Relationships (1)
The document details an adversarial legal relationship where the Government is arguing against a motion and proposed jury instruction submitted by the defense.
Key Quotes (2)
"represent[] a theory of the defense with a basis in the record that would lead to acquittal"Source
— United States v. Vasquez
(Cited as the legal standard for when it is appropriate for a court to reject a defense request for a jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00005838.jpg
Quote #1
"cannot be considered ‘illegal’ or ‘criminal’ or ‘unlawful’ for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment"Source
— defense
(A quote from the defense's proposed jury instruction regarding sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3.)
DOJ-OGR-00005838.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,985 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 55 of 84
the elements of the crimes the Court provides them, so any assumptions the jury might make about
United Kingdom law are irrelevant.14 See United States v. Vasquez, 82 F.3d 574, 577 (2d Cir.
1996) (appropriate to reject defense request for an instruction if it does not “represent[] a theory
of the defense with a basis in the record that would lead to acquittal”). And the proposed jury
instruction that the sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 “cannot be considered ‘illegal’ or
‘criminal’ or ‘unlawful’ for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment” (Def. Mot. 4 at 15),
is wrong on the law. The sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 can be considered criminal for
purposes of the crimes charged in the Indictment, because it is probative proof of the defendant’s
guilt of those crimes. The instruction the defense proposes, in contrast, creates serious risk that
the jury will think the Court is telling them that the conduct is lawful and therefore irrelevant to
the case. It is not irrelevant: it is direct evidence of the crimes charged, and it should be put before
the jury.
United Kingdom law are irrelevant.14 See United States v. Vasquez, 82 F.3d 574, 577 (2d Cir.
1996) (appropriate to reject defense request for an instruction if it does not “represent[] a theory
of the defense with a basis in the record that would lead to acquittal”). And the proposed jury
instruction that the sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 “cannot be considered ‘illegal’ or
‘criminal’ or ‘unlawful’ for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment” (Def. Mot. 4 at 15),
is wrong on the law. The sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 can be considered criminal for
purposes of the crimes charged in the Indictment, because it is probative proof of the defendant’s
guilt of those crimes. The instruction the defense proposes, in contrast, creates serious risk that
the jury will think the Court is telling them that the conduct is lawful and therefore irrelevant to
the case. It is not irrelevant: it is direct evidence of the crimes charged, and it should be put before
the jury.
IV. There is No Basis to Preclude Co-Conspirator Statements at Trial
On October 11, the Government provided the defense with comprehensive Jencks Act
material for trial witnesses and its exhibits, along with a letter telling the defense, consistent with
the Court’s order, the identities of the individuals the Government intends to argue are co-
conspirators at trial. The defense nonetheless asks the Court to enter an order precluding the
Government from introducing any co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence
material for trial witnesses and its exhibits, along with a letter telling the defense, consistent with
the Court’s order, the identities of the individuals the Government intends to argue are co-
conspirators at trial. The defense nonetheless asks the Court to enter an order precluding the
Government from introducing any co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence
____________________
14 In the event the Court instructs the jury on the age of consent in the United Kingdom, the
Government requests that the Court also instruct the jury that the United Kingdom’s age of consent
is irrelevant and they should not consider it.
Government requests that the Court also instruct the jury that the United Kingdom’s age of consent
is irrelevant and they should not consider it.
54
DOJ-OGR-00005838
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document