DOJ-OGR-00017337.jpg
607 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
607 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court transcript page where a judge explains their reasoning for rejecting a defense proposal regarding how to answer a jury's question about 'Count Four'. The judge found the proposal unhelpful and reiterated the need for the jury to consider the full legal instruction. The judge also formally places on the record their decision from the previous day to extend the jury's deliberation schedule by one hour.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unnamed Speaker | Judge (implied) |
The speaker of the transcribed text, explaining their reasoning for rejecting a defense proposal and for extending ju...
|
| The jury | Jury |
Mentioned as having asked a question about 'Count Four' and being instructed to extend their deliberations.
|
| The defense | Defense counsel |
Mentioned as having made a proposal or suggestion regarding the jury's question, which the speaker rejected.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
The judge is speaking on the record to explain their reasoning for rejecting a defense proposal and to document the extension of jury deliberations.
Courthouse (implied)
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
Defense (implied presence)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the charge: 'an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity'.
|
Relationships (2)
The speaker explicitly disagrees with and rejects a proposal made by the defense, stating 'I think the proposal made by the defense is wrong.'
The speaker is managing the jury's process, interpreting their questions, providing instructions, and setting their deliberation schedule.
Key Quotes (3)
"I think the proposal made by the defense is wrong."Source
— Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
(The speaker's conclusion after explaining their reasoning for rejecting the defense's suggestion on how to answer the jury's question.)
DOJ-OGR-00017337.jpg
Quote #1
"To say no, I think, was the wrong course, because I don't understand the question well enough to be able to say no."Source
— Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
(Explaining the rationale for not accepting the defense's suggestion to simply answer 'no' to the jury's question.)
DOJ-OGR-00017337.jpg
Quote #2
"I asked the jury to make themselves available to deliberate until at least 6:00 today, which is a one-hour extension of what's largely been our schedule."Source
— Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
(Placing on the record the instruction given to the jury to extend their deliberation time.)
DOJ-OGR-00017337.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,551 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 16 3150
LCSCMAXI
LCSCMAXI
1 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage
2 in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this
3 is the same basic discussion that we've had. So, in addition
4 to my reasoning yesterday, I think the proposal made by the
5 defense is wrong.
6 I continue to not know how to parse the jury's
7 question exactly, other than to know that they are asking about
8 Count Four, the defense's original suggestion to just point to
9 the motivating factor I rejected language or to say no. To say
10 no, I think, was the wrong course, because I don't understand
11 the question well enough to be able to say no.
12 Pointing to just the motivating factor language I
13 think was unhelpful because, really, the point is to remind
14 them of the whole instruction, including that it's a violation
15 of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual
16 activity that they're considering.
17 So, for those reasons, I am in the same place.
18 I did want to make a little bit of an additional
19 record regarding my extending the deliberations by an hour, the
20 instructions that I gave yesterday regarding that slightly
21 extended schedule.
22 I asked the jury to make themselves available to
23 deliberate until at least 6:00 today, which is a one-hour
24 extension of what's largely been our schedule. Although, it
25 was until 6 o'clock, I think, on the first night of
2 in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this
3 is the same basic discussion that we've had. So, in addition
4 to my reasoning yesterday, I think the proposal made by the
5 defense is wrong.
6 I continue to not know how to parse the jury's
7 question exactly, other than to know that they are asking about
8 Count Four, the defense's original suggestion to just point to
9 the motivating factor I rejected language or to say no. To say
10 no, I think, was the wrong course, because I don't understand
11 the question well enough to be able to say no.
12 Pointing to just the motivating factor language I
13 think was unhelpful because, really, the point is to remind
14 them of the whole instruction, including that it's a violation
15 of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual
16 activity that they're considering.
17 So, for those reasons, I am in the same place.
18 I did want to make a little bit of an additional
19 record regarding my extending the deliberations by an hour, the
20 instructions that I gave yesterday regarding that slightly
21 extended schedule.
22 I asked the jury to make themselves available to
23 deliberate until at least 6:00 today, which is a one-hour
24 extension of what's largely been our schedule. Although, it
25 was until 6 o'clock, I think, on the first night of
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017337
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document