DOJ-OGR-00016967.jpg
565 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
565 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about finalizing the wording for jury instructions. The parties agree on language concerning the defendant's knowledge of a person named Jane being under 17 and the context of 'interstate commerce'.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane |
Mentioned as a person who the defendant knew was less than 17 years old.
|
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, presiding over the proceedings and making decisions on jury instructions.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, participating in the discussion about jury instructions.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, representing the government's position on jury instructions.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach as having proposed an instruction and agreeing with the court's suggestion.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between the court and attorneys regarding the specific wording of jury instructions for a case. The discussion focuses on how to phrase the element of a victim's age ('less than 17 years old') and its connection to interstate commerce.
Southern District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, likely referring to a U.S. Southern District Court.
|
Relationships (3)
Both are attorneys participating in a court proceeding, discussing jury instructions with the judge, likely as opposing counsel.
The Court is presiding over the case and Mr. Everdell is an attorney arguing before the court.
The Court is presiding over the case and Mr. Rohrbach is an attorney arguing before the court.
Key Quotes (3)
"I spent an inordinate amount of time thinking through precisely this question, and I decided that it's best just to do this because it would just be confusing."Source
— THE COURT
(Explaining the decision to simplify a jury instruction rather than use a more complex explanation.)
DOJ-OGR-00016967.jpg
Quote #1
"That's fine with the government."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Agreeing to the court's proposed wording for the jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00016967.jpg
Quote #2
"Why don't we do "under [the age of 17 years] in interstate commerce.""Source
— THE COURT
(Proposing the final wording for a part of the jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00016967.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,418 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 41 of 95
LCI1MAX1
2779
LCI1MAX1
2779
1 which is on the next page, page 26. The third element says
2 that the defendant knew that Jane was less than 17 years old.
3 THE COURT: Do you want to do bracket?
4 MR. EVERDELL: Yeah, I think we should do a bracket.
5 THE COURT: Mr. Rohrbach?
6 MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine. The government proposed
7 perhaps an awkward instruction I think to perhaps explain this
8 to the jury. This is an elegant solution.
9 THE COURT: I spent an inordinate amount of time
10 thinking through precisely this question, and I decided that
11 it's best just to do this because it would just be confusing.
12 I mean, it is a separate element, but it would just be
13 confusing. So I think this is a good suggestion.
14 Page 25. So we'll take out -- well, why don't we do
15 this. Why don't we do "under [the age of 17 years] in
16 interstate commerce."
17 MR. EVERDELL: That's fine, your Honor.
18 MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine with the government.
19 MR. EVERDELL: That's perfectly acceptable.
20 THE COURT: So page 25, line 4, "Any individual under
21 [the age of 17 years] in interstate commerce."
22 Okay. What's next?
23 MR. EVERDELL: We covered page 26 already, so -- and
24 on page 27, I believe there's an "or foreign" issue, so line 5.
25 THE COURT: Yes. Page 27, line 5, deleting "or
2 that the defendant knew that Jane was less than 17 years old.
3 THE COURT: Do you want to do bracket?
4 MR. EVERDELL: Yeah, I think we should do a bracket.
5 THE COURT: Mr. Rohrbach?
6 MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine. The government proposed
7 perhaps an awkward instruction I think to perhaps explain this
8 to the jury. This is an elegant solution.
9 THE COURT: I spent an inordinate amount of time
10 thinking through precisely this question, and I decided that
11 it's best just to do this because it would just be confusing.
12 I mean, it is a separate element, but it would just be
13 confusing. So I think this is a good suggestion.
14 Page 25. So we'll take out -- well, why don't we do
15 this. Why don't we do "under [the age of 17 years] in
16 interstate commerce."
17 MR. EVERDELL: That's fine, your Honor.
18 MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine with the government.
19 MR. EVERDELL: That's perfectly acceptable.
20 THE COURT: So page 25, line 4, "Any individual under
21 [the age of 17 years] in interstate commerce."
22 Okay. What's next?
23 MR. EVERDELL: We covered page 26 already, so -- and
24 on page 27, I believe there's an "or foreign" issue, so line 5.
25 THE COURT: Yes. Page 27, line 5, deleting "or
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016967
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document