DOJ-OGR-00016958.jpg
619 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
619 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge ('THE COURT') and an attorney ('MR. EVERDELL'). Mr. Everdell is advocating for a new proposed jury instruction, arguing that its 'dominant purpose' language is more accurate as it is based on Second Circuit case law from Judge Rakoff, unlike the previous instruction's language which he claims was invented by Judge Sand without basis in circuit law.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Sand | Judge |
Mentioned as the person who invented the 'purpose' language being discussed, which is claimed not to have come from c...
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, questioning Mr. Everdell about a proposed jury instruction.
|
| MR. EVERDELL |
A speaker in the transcript, presumably an attorney, defending a new proposed jury instruction to the court.
|
|
| Rakoff | Judge |
Mentioned as having crafted an instruction in the 'Miller' case to deal with the issue of 'dominant purpose' in the S...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | Judiciary / Government agency |
Mentioned multiple times as the source of case law and opinions regarding the 'dominant purpose' language.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between the court and Mr. Everdell regarding the language of a proposed jury instruction, specifically the term 'dominant purpose' and its origins in case law.
Southern District Court (implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The legal jurisdiction where the case law being discussed was developed.
|
|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting company, 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.'
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a formal court proceeding where Mr. Everdell, an attorney, is addressing the judge ('THE COURT' / 'Your Honor') to argue a legal point about jury instructions.
Key Quotes (3)
"As smart as Judge Sand was, that did not actually come from any circuit case law."Source
— MR. EVERDELL (implied)
(Arguing against using legal language attributed to Judge Sand in a jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00016958.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, there's nothing wrong with it per se. It is a charge that has been used in other cases, and we proposed it, so we obviously think it's acceptable."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Responding to the court's question about what is wrong with the current instruction that the court had adopted.)
DOJ-OGR-00016958.jpg
Quote #2
"I think the new proposed charge is a charge that is more accurate and also tracks the case law development on this point because the dominant purpose is actually something that was in a Second Circuit opinion..."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Justifying the submission of a new proposed jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00016958.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,646 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 32 of 95
LCI1MAX1
LCI1MAX1
1 purpose" language than language that happened to have been
2 invented by Sand. As smart as Judge Sand was, that did not
3 actually come from any circuit case law. So we propose going
4 with what the courts have actually said on this issue rather
5 than a proposal in Sand.
6 THE COURT: I'm just going to read for a moment.
7 I think I want to start by asking what's wrong with
8 the current instruction, the one that you proposed that I
9 adopted? That's the one that I've seen in --
10 MR. EVERDELL: Well --
11 THE COURT: -- in charges.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, there's nothing wrong with
13 it per se. It is a charge that has been used in other cases,
14 and we proposed it, so we obviously think it's acceptable. But
15 I think the new proposed charge is a charge that is more
16 accurate and also tracks the case law development on this point
17 because the dominant purpose is actually something that was in
18 a Second Circuit opinion and it's, you know -- Judge Rakoff has
19 tried to craft an instruction in Miller to deal with the issue
20 of one dominant purpose versus the dominant purpose, but the
21 way that I think the case law has developed in the Second
22 Circuit, it started with "dominant purpose" was the language
23 used and then we had to deal with this issue of ambiguity
24 there, and this is how Judge Rakoff came out, but was still
25 keeping the "dominant purpose" language but clarifying it was
2 invented by Sand. As smart as Judge Sand was, that did not
3 actually come from any circuit case law. So we propose going
4 with what the courts have actually said on this issue rather
5 than a proposal in Sand.
6 THE COURT: I'm just going to read for a moment.
7 I think I want to start by asking what's wrong with
8 the current instruction, the one that you proposed that I
9 adopted? That's the one that I've seen in --
10 MR. EVERDELL: Well --
11 THE COURT: -- in charges.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, there's nothing wrong with
13 it per se. It is a charge that has been used in other cases,
14 and we proposed it, so we obviously think it's acceptable. But
15 I think the new proposed charge is a charge that is more
16 accurate and also tracks the case law development on this point
17 because the dominant purpose is actually something that was in
18 a Second Circuit opinion and it's, you know -- Judge Rakoff has
19 tried to craft an instruction in Miller to deal with the issue
20 of one dominant purpose versus the dominant purpose, but the
21 way that I think the case law has developed in the Second
22 Circuit, it started with "dominant purpose" was the language
23 used and then we had to deal with this issue of ambiguity
24 there, and this is how Judge Rakoff came out, but was still
25 keeping the "dominant purpose" language but clarifying it was
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016958
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document