DOJ-OGR-00001013.jpg
603 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
603 KB
Summary
This is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, where the judge justifies holding the proceeding with COVID-19 safety measures, referencing a national emergency and ensuring public trial rights are upheld. The judge then transitions to the arraignment, confirming with counsel Ms. Moe that it is for an S1 superseding indictment and asking for an explanation of the changes from the original indictment.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Counsel |
Addressed by the court and responds to questions regarding the arraignment on a superseding indictment.
|
| The Judge | Judge |
Presiding over the court proceeding, speaking as 'THE COURT' and addressing 'your Honor'.
|
| chief judge of the district | Chief Judge |
Mentioned as having recognized the COVID-19 national emergency in order number 20MC176.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript page, likely the firm responsible for the transcription.
|
| The Court | Government Agency |
The judicial body conducting the proceeding, mentioned throughout the document.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The chief judge of the district recognized in order number 20MC176 that COVID-19 remains a national emergency restricting normal court operations.
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as having its seating limited to 60 due to the pandemic.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of staff safety.
|
|
|
A regular-sized courtroom is used as a comparison for the number of people who can watch a proceeding.
|
|
|
Implied location of the court, as mentioned in the name of the reporting agency 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.'.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"Ms. Moe, am I correct that this is an arraignment on the S1 superseding indictment?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge is beginning the arraignment portion of the proceeding and confirming its nature with counsel.)
DOJ-OGR-00001013.jpg
Quote #1
"That's correct, your Honor."Source
— MS. MOE
(Counsel's response to the judge, confirming the proceeding is an arraignment on the superseding indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00001013.jpg
Quote #2
"Can you explain what the difference is between the S1 and the original indictment?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge asks counsel to detail the changes made in the new indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00001013.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,449 characters)
Case 21-770, Document 20-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page72 of 200
9
k7e2MaxC kjc
9
k7e2MaxC kjc
in this case. As the chief judge of the district has
recognized in order number 20MC176, COVID-19 remains a national
emergency that restricts normal operations of the courts.
Conducting this proceeding in person is not safely feasible.
Second, the measures taken by the court are no broader
than necessary to address the challenges posed by the pandemic.
Although the number of seats in the jury assembly room is
limited to 60, it is necessary to do so for public and
courthouse staff safety and is closely equivalent to the number
of people who would be able to watch an in-court proceeding in
a regular-sized courtroom. The number of people who will be
able to hear the live audio of this proceeding far exceeds
access under normal in-person circumstances.
Lastly, given the safety and technology limitations,
there are no reasonable alternatives to the measures the court
has taken.
Accordingly, the access provided is fully in accord
with the First and Sixth Amendment public trial rights.
With those preliminary matters out of the way,
counsel, I propose we turn to the arraignment.
Ms. Moe, am I correct that this is an arraignment on
the S1 superseding indictment?
MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Can you explain what the difference is
between the S1 and the original indictment?
recognized in order number 20MC176, COVID-19 remains a national
emergency that restricts normal operations of the courts.
Conducting this proceeding in person is not safely feasible.
Second, the measures taken by the court are no broader
than necessary to address the challenges posed by the pandemic.
Although the number of seats in the jury assembly room is
limited to 60, it is necessary to do so for public and
courthouse staff safety and is closely equivalent to the number
of people who would be able to watch an in-court proceeding in
a regular-sized courtroom. The number of people who will be
able to hear the live audio of this proceeding far exceeds
access under normal in-person circumstances.
Lastly, given the safety and technology limitations,
there are no reasonable alternatives to the measures the court
has taken.
Accordingly, the access provided is fully in accord
with the First and Sixth Amendment public trial rights.
With those preliminary matters out of the way,
counsel, I propose we turn to the arraignment.
Ms. Moe, am I correct that this is an arraignment on
the S1 superseding indictment?
MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Can you explain what the difference is
between the S1 and the original indictment?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00001013
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document