DOJ-OGR-00014793.jpg
640 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
4
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
640 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court transcript or ruling where a judge dismisses a defense argument. The judge affirms that an 'undue influence' enhancement applies to the defendant's sex trafficking conviction involving a victim named Carolyn. The judge cites Carolyn's financial vulnerability (drug addiction, newborn son) and the significant age gap with Epstein as clear evidence of undue influence, making the defense's argument 'meritless'.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Smith | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013'.
|
| Carolyn | Victim |
Subject of a sex trafficking conviction (Count Six). Testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized massages due t...
|
| Virginia Roberts |
Mentioned as the person who brought Carolyn and Melissa.
|
|
| Melissa | Victim |
Mentioned as being brought by Virginia Roberts and subsequently paid.
|
| Jane | Victim |
One of the 'remaining victims' who testified they received money and gifts during their abuse.
|
| Annie | Victim |
One of the 'remaining victims' who testified they received money and gifts during their abuse.
|
| Epstein |
The person Carolyn was paid to sexually massage. The age gap between him and Carolyn exceeded ten years.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ninth Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned as the court for the 'United States v. Smith' case.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Relationships (4)
The jury convicted the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn.
Carolyn was paid to give Epstein sexualized massages. The document notes a significant age gap (over ten years) and Carolyn's financial vulnerability as evidence of undue influence.
Virginia Roberts... who brought Carolyn and Melissa...
Virginia Roberts... who brought Carolyn and Melissa...
Key Quotes (1)
"serve unique purposes under the Guidelines."Source
— United States v. Smith case
(Describing the purpose of the 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue influence enhancement.)
DOJ-OGR-00014793.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,538 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 46 of 101
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
Cir. 2021) (summary order). Similar conclusion, United States
v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That
case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue
influence enhancement "serve unique purposes under the
Guidelines."
The defense argues that because the enhancement
applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a
commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in
Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn
to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that
Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was
brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims,
including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received
money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the
enhancement.
The defendant argues Carolyn was not unduly influenced
to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless.
The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far
exceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the
resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note
7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized
massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction.
Later, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money
for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of
a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll
v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That
case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue
influence enhancement "serve unique purposes under the
Guidelines."
The defense argues that because the enhancement
applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a
commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in
Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn
to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that
Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was
brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims,
including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received
money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the
enhancement.
The defendant argues Carolyn was not unduly influenced
to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless.
The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far
exceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the
resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note
7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized
massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction.
Later, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money
for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of
a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014793
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document