HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017260.jpg
1.14 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Manuscript page / legal memoir excerpt (house oversight committee evidence)
File Size:
1.14 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (possibly by Alan Dershowitz given the self-reference) included in House Oversight evidence. It recounts a specific legal argument before the Supreme Court involving Justice Scalia regarding the 'Enmund' case (Enmund v. Florida) and the application of the felony murder rule when guns are provided during a crime. The text is a dialogue transcript interspersed with narrative commentary.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alan Dershowitz | Narrator / Attorney |
Narrating a Supreme Court argument, referring to himself as 'Mr. Dershowitz' and engaging in dialogue 'law professor ...
|
| Antonin Scalia | Supreme Court Justice |
Questioning Dershowitz during oral arguments; referred to as 'Justice Scalia'.
|
| Warren E. Burger | Chief Justice (Former) |
Referenced by Dershowitz regarding his 'bear baiting hypothetical' in a previous case.
|
| Unidentified Justice | Supreme Court Justice |
Asks the specific question 'In Enmund, had he provided the gun?'
|
| Earl Enmund | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Subject of the legal precedent 'Enmund v. Florida' being discussed.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Supreme Court |
Setting of the dialogue.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (indicated by Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Unknown (Historical Context)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied location of the Supreme Court.
|
Relationships (1)
Engaging in oral argument; Dershowitz refers to the interaction as 'law professor to law professor'.
Key Quotes (3)
"What Your Honor, Justice Scalia, is asking for, in a sense, is a return to the felony murder rule where guns are provided."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017260.jpg
Quote #1
"And to throw a hypothetical back, which I'm not entitled to do, but I'll throw it back to myself..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017260.jpg
Quote #2
"Certainly, a reasonable judge and jury could conclude that he had provided the gun."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017260.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,406 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
I was reminded of Chief Justice Berger’s bear baiting hypothetical in the I Am Curious Yellow case, but this time the stakes were much higher. I answered the Justice’s question:
No. That wouldn't be enough.
And that is not this case in any event.
This case is handing guns over, under an agreement that no shooting would take place.
In Enmund the guns were provided.
What Your Honor, Justice Scalia, is asking for, in a sense, is a return to the felony murder rule where guns are provided.
Justice Scalia didn’t seem satisfied with my answer, so I threw a hypothetical back to him—law professor to law professor:
And to throw a hypothetical back, which I'm not entitled to do, but I'll throw it back to myself...what if there were a statute saying, anyone who provides guns to an armed robber in the course of an armed robbery, whereby death results, is guilty of first-degree capital murder?
That would be clearly within Enmund.
That's what Enmund decided.
Because the facts of Enmund were exactly that.
The dialogue continued:
Justice:
In Enmund, had he provided the gun?
Mr. Dershowitz:
The state certainly argued that he had provided the gun in Enmund.
The gun had belonged to his common law wife.
He then disposed of the gun.
Certainly, a reasonable judge and jury could conclude that he had provided the gun.
It was an armed robbery.
173
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017260
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document