DOJ-OGR-00014707.jpg
590 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
590 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell). The discussion focuses on formulating a response to a jury's question regarding 'Count Four', specifically concerning the required evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight to secure a conviction. The judge finds the jury's question ambiguous and directs them to the full jury instructions, while the counsel argues for a more specific clarification.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, presiding over the case and interacting with counsel.
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Counsel |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing a point about jury instructions related to the purpose of travel.
|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Counsel |
Speaker in the transcript, requests a moment to confer with other counsel.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Counsel |
Speaker in the transcript, addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and attempts to raise a new issue.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between the judge and counsel regarding how to answer a jury's question about the intent and purpose of travel related to 'Element 2 of Count Four'. The debate centers on whether a conviction is possible without evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (4)
Ms. Menninger is counsel arguing a legal point before the judge (THE COURT) in a formal court proceeding.
Mr. Everdell addresses the judge as 'Your Honor', indicating a formal, professional relationship within a legal setting.
Both are identified as counsel and the transcript notes '(Counsel conferred)', suggesting they are colleagues working together.
Ms. Menninger references a point made by Mr. Everdell ('as Mr. Everdell said'), indicating they are colleagues collaborating on the legal argument.
Key Quotes (3)
"I can't answer this ambiguous question no."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's initial response to a question from the jury, deeming it ambiguous.)
DOJ-OGR-00014707.jpg
Quote #1
"If they don't have evidence that the intent on the return flight was for purposes of sexual activity, then I do think the answer, as Mr. Everdell said is, no, they can't convict."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Arguing that a lack of evidence regarding intent for sexual activity on a return flight should preclude a conviction.)
DOJ-OGR-00014707.jpg
Quote #2
"Your Honor, I'm sorry to raise another issue, but I think we have to, given the note itself."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Addressing the judge to introduce a new point for consideration.)
DOJ-OGR-00014707.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,500 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 29 3138
LCRVMAXT
LCRVMAXT
1 THE COURT: I can't answer this ambiguous question no.
2 I don't know that the answer is no, even with the ambiguity;
3 because I don't know if what they have in mind is an aiding and
4 abetting question, which we haven't discussed yet.
5 MS. MENNINGER: They never used the word "abet."
6 THE COURT: That's true. I won't assume that's the
7 question for purposes of the answer, but I also don't assume
8 the meaning that you've put on it for purposes of the answer.
9 So the only solution here is to say, I direct you to consider
10 the full instruction on Element 2 of Count Four on page 28.
11 MS. MENNINGER: Our request would be to emphasize the
12 portion of that that talks about the purpose of the travel.
13 Because they have highlighted the purpose of the travel in
14 their question. And the way I read it is certainly that that's
15 their question. If they don't have evidence that the intent on
16 the return flight was for purposes of sexual activity, then I
17 do think the answer, as Mr. Everdell said is, no, they can't
18 convict.
19 MS. STERNHEIM: May I have a moment?
20 (Counsel conferred)
21 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to raise another
22 issue, but I think we have to, given the note itself.
23 One moment. Sorry. The photograph on the phone keeps
24 disappearing.
25 We're talking about they are referring to Count Four,
2 I don't know that the answer is no, even with the ambiguity;
3 because I don't know if what they have in mind is an aiding and
4 abetting question, which we haven't discussed yet.
5 MS. MENNINGER: They never used the word "abet."
6 THE COURT: That's true. I won't assume that's the
7 question for purposes of the answer, but I also don't assume
8 the meaning that you've put on it for purposes of the answer.
9 So the only solution here is to say, I direct you to consider
10 the full instruction on Element 2 of Count Four on page 28.
11 MS. MENNINGER: Our request would be to emphasize the
12 portion of that that talks about the purpose of the travel.
13 Because they have highlighted the purpose of the travel in
14 their question. And the way I read it is certainly that that's
15 their question. If they don't have evidence that the intent on
16 the return flight was for purposes of sexual activity, then I
17 do think the answer, as Mr. Everdell said is, no, they can't
18 convict.
19 MS. STERNHEIM: May I have a moment?
20 (Counsel conferred)
21 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to raise another
22 issue, but I think we have to, given the note itself.
23 One moment. Sorry. The photograph on the phone keeps
24 disappearing.
25 We're talking about they are referring to Count Four,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014707
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document