DOJ-OGR-00016956.jpg
630 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
630 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, is arguing a point of law to the judge regarding the jury instruction for 'dominant purpose' in a case about crossing state lines for criminal sexual conduct. He cites legal precedents, including the 'Sand' and 'Miller' cases, to support his position that the purpose need only be one of the dominant purposes, not the sole one.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Attorney |
Speaking to the court, arguing about the legal definition of "dominant purpose" in jury instructions.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by Mr. Rohrbach. Referred to as "THE COURT" when speaking.
|
| Sand | Legal authority or case precedent |
Cited by Mr. Rohrbach as endorsing the practice of rephrasing "dominant" as "significant or motivating purpose".
|
| Miller | Legal authority or case precedent |
Cited by Mr. Rohrbach in the context of the "Miller case," which he states affirms that a certain instruction is not ...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place regarding the definition of 'dominant purpose' for jury instructions in a case involving crossing state lines for criminal sexual conduct.
Courtroom
MR. ROHRBACH
THE COURT
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of a violation of "New York law".
|
|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Relationships (1)
Mr. Rohrbach, an attorney, is presenting a legal argument to the judge (The Court/Your Honor) in a formal court proceeding.
Key Quotes (3)
"Your Honor, all that the law requires is that it be one of the dominant purposes of the trip, which is the instruction that the defense originally sought and the Court gave."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Arguing the legal standard for the purpose of a trip in a criminal case.)
DOJ-OGR-00016956.jpg
Quote #1
"All the Miller case does is affirm that this instruction is not error. It does not say that that is the required instruction by -- at least as I'm reading the --"Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Interpreting the precedent set by the 'Miller case' regarding jury instructions.)
DOJ-OGR-00016956.jpg
Quote #2
"Let me look. I've only read the --"Source
— THE COURT
(Responding to Mr. Rohrbach's legal argument, indicating a need to review the material.)
DOJ-OGR-00016956.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,693 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 30 of 95
LCI1MAX1
2768
LCI1MAX1
2768
1 across state lines to have her engage in criminal sexual
2 conduct, in violation of New York law. It need not have been
3 her only purpose or motivation, but it must have been more than
4 merely incidental. It must have been one of the dominant
5 purposes of the trip.
6 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, all that the law requires
7 is that it be one of the dominant purposes of the trip, which
8 is the instruction that the defense originally sought and the
9 Court gave. It's the practice, as Sand endorses, to rephrase
10 "dominant" as "significant or motivating purpose" to avoid
11 confusion, because it doesn't have to be the sole dominant
12 purpose, it just has to be a dominant purpose, and so from
13 Sand, that creates ambiguity that it has to be a sufficient --
14 such a big purpose that it's the dominant purpose, which is not
15 what is required by the statute. This instruction suggests
16 there's an additional requirement, which is that it be some
17 sort of conscious purpose to engage in the particular criminal
18 violation suggesting knowledge of the criminal statute and
19 criminal prohibition. All the Miller case does is affirm that
20 this instruction is not error. It does not say that that is
21 the required instruction by -- at least as I'm reading the --
22 I'm reading the Miller case for the first time now, but it is
23 an appeal from a conviction on that instruction. It is not
24 suggesting that it's required by --
25 THE COURT: Let me look. I've only read the --
2 conduct, in violation of New York law. It need not have been
3 her only purpose or motivation, but it must have been more than
4 merely incidental. It must have been one of the dominant
5 purposes of the trip.
6 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, all that the law requires
7 is that it be one of the dominant purposes of the trip, which
8 is the instruction that the defense originally sought and the
9 Court gave. It's the practice, as Sand endorses, to rephrase
10 "dominant" as "significant or motivating purpose" to avoid
11 confusion, because it doesn't have to be the sole dominant
12 purpose, it just has to be a dominant purpose, and so from
13 Sand, that creates ambiguity that it has to be a sufficient --
14 such a big purpose that it's the dominant purpose, which is not
15 what is required by the statute. This instruction suggests
16 there's an additional requirement, which is that it be some
17 sort of conscious purpose to engage in the particular criminal
18 violation suggesting knowledge of the criminal statute and
19 criminal prohibition. All the Miller case does is affirm that
20 this instruction is not error. It does not say that that is
21 the required instruction by -- at least as I'm reading the --
22 I'm reading the Miller case for the first time now, but it is
23 an appeal from a conviction on that instruction. It is not
24 suggesting that it's required by --
25 THE COURT: Let me look. I've only read the --
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016956
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document