DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
649 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document (court transcript)
File Size:
649 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between legal counsel and the judge over the jury's deliberation schedule. Ms. Menninger objects to extending the jury's hours, suggesting it could be perceived as pressure to rush, while Ms. Moe argues it is merely procedural scheduling. The judge resolves the issue by deciding to instruct the jury to be available to deliberate until 6 p.m. daily, starting the next day, if they have not yet reached a verdict.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MENNINGER | Speaker (likely legal counsel) |
Speaking to the judge ('Your Honor'), arguing against urging the jury to stay later for deliberations.
|
| MS. MOE | Speaker (likely legal counsel) |
Speaking to the judge ('Your Honor'), arguing in favor of extending the jury's deliberation schedule.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the proceeding, addressed as 'Your Honor', and making the final decision on the jury's schedule.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case and making decisions on procedure.
|
| 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 legal counsel and the judge regarding the schedule for ongoing jury deliberations.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (3)
Ms. Menninger addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal argument for the judge's consideration.
Ms. Moe addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and presents a counter-argument to Ms. Menninger's position.
They represent opposing viewpoints on the issue of the jury's schedule, presenting conflicting arguments to the court.
Key Quotes (3)
"we believe that any suggestion that they should stay later is beginning to sound like urging them to hurry up..."Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Arguing against instructing the jury to deliberate for longer hours.)
DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
Quote #1
"We don't believe that sends any kind of signal, other than that the Court is setting a schedule."Source
— MS. MOE
(Countering Ms. Menninger's argument and supporting the extension of deliberation hours.)
DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
Quote #2
"I'll tell them that if deliberations are not complete starting tomorrow, I would like you to make yourselves available to deliberate until at least 6 p.m. each day."Source
— THE COURT
(Stating the final decision and instruction that will be given to the jury regarding their schedule.)
DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,607 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 25 of 29 3142
LCRVMAXT
LCRVMAXT
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, at this point, because it
has only been three days, we believe that any suggestion that
they should stay later is beginning to sound like urging them
to hurry up, when clearly they know that they can deliberate as
long as they want and they should be able to deliberate as long
as they want. They haven't expressed any hesitation. They've
been asking for transcripts, they've been asking for materials.
While we would not mind the Court giving an
instruction much like it did last week, telling the jurors that
should they choose to stay later on any given day, the Court
can make arrangements for them to do so, we would object to
trying to urge them to stay later if they are not asking to do
so and aren't expressing any difficulty in proceeding with the
deliberations that they are currently undertaking.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, the Court has previously
extended certain days or contracted certain days, depending on
our schedule; and, in fact, I think the first day of
deliberations we had an extended day on the consent of both
parties. We don't believe that sends any kind of signal, other
than that the Court is setting a schedule. And we think that's
appropriate here given the circumstances.
THE COURT: I think what we should do, I'll tell them
that if deliberations are not complete starting tomorrow, I
would like you to make yourselves available to deliberate until
at least 6 p.m. each day. Of course, if you all agree to
has only been three days, we believe that any suggestion that
they should stay later is beginning to sound like urging them
to hurry up, when clearly they know that they can deliberate as
long as they want and they should be able to deliberate as long
as they want. They haven't expressed any hesitation. They've
been asking for transcripts, they've been asking for materials.
While we would not mind the Court giving an
instruction much like it did last week, telling the jurors that
should they choose to stay later on any given day, the Court
can make arrangements for them to do so, we would object to
trying to urge them to stay later if they are not asking to do
so and aren't expressing any difficulty in proceeding with the
deliberations that they are currently undertaking.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, the Court has previously
extended certain days or contracted certain days, depending on
our schedule; and, in fact, I think the first day of
deliberations we had an extended day on the consent of both
parties. We don't believe that sends any kind of signal, other
than that the Court is setting a schedule. And we think that's
appropriate here given the circumstances.
THE COURT: I think what we should do, I'll tell them
that if deliberations are not complete starting tomorrow, I
would like you to make yourselves available to deliberate until
at least 6 p.m. each day. Of course, if you all agree to
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014711
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document