File not found.
DOJ-OGR-00014719.jpg
643 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
643 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An attorney argues that the existing instructions are sufficient and that sending new, confusing ones would be a mistake. The judge ('THE COURT') then critiques the defense's newly proposed instruction, stating it addresses a count the jury didn't ask about and contains a legally incorrect paragraph concerning sexual activity involving a person named 'Jane' in states other than New York.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Judge | Honor / THE COURT |
Referred to as 'your Honor' by a speaker and speaks as 'THE COURT'. The judge is discussing jury instructions.
|
| Jane |
Mentioned in the context of a proposed jury instruction regarding her sexual activity in New York and New Mexico.
|
|
| Mr. Everdell |
Addressed directly by the Court regarding a previous discussion about sexual activity involving Jane.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 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 took place in court regarding the appropriateness of sending new legal instructions to the jury. The defense's proposed instruction for Count Two was analyzed and criticized by the judge.
Courtroom (implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a proposed jury instruction regarding where sexual activity with Jane could form the basis of legal elem...
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of sexual activity with Jane under the age of 17.
|
Relationships (2)
The Judge directly addresses Mr. Everdell in a formal court setting, referencing a prior discussion they had.
The unnamed speaker, likely an attorney, addresses the judge as 'your Honor' while presenting a legal argument.
Key Quotes (3)
"The simple course is exactly the course the Court took yesterday, which is to refer the jury to a thorough and complete and accurate legal instruction."Source
— Unnamed Speaker
(Arguing that the existing jury instructions are sufficient and no new ones are needed.)
DOJ-OGR-00014719.jpg
Quote #1
"I mean, the defense's new proposed instruction talks about Count Two, which wasn't asked about."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge begins to critique the defense's proposed new jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00014719.jpg
Quote #2
"And then the third paragraph I think is just wrong, an intent that Jane engaged in sexual activity in any state other than New York cannot form the basis of these elements."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge identifies a specific legal error in the defense's proposed jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00014719.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,664 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 16 3149
LCSCMAXT
LCSCMAXT
1 there can be no error in referring the jury to a correct legal
2 instruction. And so no relief is appropriate here.
3 At bottom, your Honor, the jury asked a question and
4 nothing more. There is no reason to speculate about what the
5 jury might be concluding. The jury has been accurately
6 instructed on the law and that's all that's required here.
7 Going beyond that to speculate about the jury's deliberations
8 and compound speculation upon speculation to send back
9 confusing legal instructions would compound the problem here.
10 The simple course is exactly the course the Court took
11 yesterday, which is to refer the jury to a thorough and
12 complete and accurate legal instruction. There can't be any
13 dispute that the instructions that the Court has given are
14 accurate, and that's all that's required here.
15 THE COURT: I suppose an additional point, just
16 looking at the -- I mean, the defense's new proposed
17 instruction talks about Count Two, which wasn't asked about.
18 Also, it has -- so it has three paragraphs. The first one is
19 about Count Two, which wasn't asked about. There is a second
20 paragraph. And then the third paragraph I think is just wrong,
21 an intent that Jane engaged in sexual activity in any state
22 other than New York cannot form the basis of these elements.
23 That would suggest it may have no relevance. This is the same
24 discussion we've had a couple of times, Mr. Everdell. Sexual
25 activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17
2 instruction. And so no relief is appropriate here.
3 At bottom, your Honor, the jury asked a question and
4 nothing more. There is no reason to speculate about what the
5 jury might be concluding. The jury has been accurately
6 instructed on the law and that's all that's required here.
7 Going beyond that to speculate about the jury's deliberations
8 and compound speculation upon speculation to send back
9 confusing legal instructions would compound the problem here.
10 The simple course is exactly the course the Court took
11 yesterday, which is to refer the jury to a thorough and
12 complete and accurate legal instruction. There can't be any
13 dispute that the instructions that the Court has given are
14 accurate, and that's all that's required here.
15 THE COURT: I suppose an additional point, just
16 looking at the -- I mean, the defense's new proposed
17 instruction talks about Count Two, which wasn't asked about.
18 Also, it has -- so it has three paragraphs. The first one is
19 about Count Two, which wasn't asked about. There is a second
20 paragraph. And then the third paragraph I think is just wrong,
21 an intent that Jane engaged in sexual activity in any state
22 other than New York cannot form the basis of these elements.
23 That would suggest it may have no relevance. This is the same
24 discussion we've had a couple of times, Mr. Everdell. Sexual
25 activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014719
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document