DOJ-OGR-00017325.jpg
590 KB
Extraction Summary
5
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 discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell) regarding a jury question. The conversation focuses on how to properly instruct the jury on 'Count Four', specifically concerning the intent and purpose of travel in relation to an 'aiding and abetting' charge. The judge resolves the ambiguity by directing the jury to review the full written instructions.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, responding to questions and directing counsel.
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Counsel/Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing a point about jury instructions.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Counsel/Attorney |
Mentioned by Ms. Menninger and is a speaker in the transcript.
|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Counsel/Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, requests a moment to confer with counsel.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Counsel/Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, addressing the judge ('Your Honor').
|
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 discussion on the record between the judge and attorneys about how to answer a question from the jury regarding instructions for Count Four.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (4)
Dialogue between a judge and an attorney during a court proceeding.
Dialogue between a judge and an attorney during a court proceeding.
Ms. Menninger references a statement made by Mr. Everdell, and the transcript notes '(Counsel conferred)', suggesting they are part of the same legal team.
The transcript notes '(Counsel conferred)' after Ms. Sternheim speaks and before Mr. Everdell speaks, suggesting they are part of the same legal team.
Key Quotes (3)
"I can't answer this ambiguous question no."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's initial response to a question, presumably from the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00017325.jpg
Quote #1
"So the only solution here is to say, I direct you to consider the full instruction on Element 2 of Count Four on page 28."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's final instruction to resolve the ambiguity of the jury's question.)
DOJ-OGR-00017325.jpg
Quote #2
"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
(Counsel's interpretation of the law regarding the jury's question about the purpose of travel.)
DOJ-OGR-00017325.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-00017325
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document