DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
641 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
8
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
641 KB
Summary
This legal document details a court's rejection of the defense's proposed jury instructions in a criminal case. The core dispute revolves around whether sexual activity with a minor named Jane in New Mexico is relevant to proving intent for a charge under New York law. The Court dismisses the defense's arguments as legally incorrect and refuses to alter its instructions to the jury based on the defense's interpretation of a jury note.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Subject of testimony |
Mentioned in relation to sexual activity in New Mexico and potential transport to New York.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judicial body |
The judicial authority ruling on the defense's proposals and instructing the jury.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location relevant to the charges, specifically regarding its penal law and the destination of alleged transport.
|
|
|
Location where sexual activity with Jane occurred, which is being discussed in terms of its relevance to the New York...
|
Relationships (1)
The document details a legal disagreement where the Court repeatedly rejects the arguments and proposed jury instructions from the defense, labeling them 'just wrong' and 'wrong as a legal matter'.
Key Quotes (8)
"just wrong,"Source
— The Court
(Describing the defense's proposed final sentence for jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
Quote #1
"This is the same discussion we’ve had a couple of times . . . . Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think."Source
— The Court
(Explaining its reasoning on the relevance of acts in New Mexico to the charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
Quote #2
"not know how to parse the jury’s question exactly,"Source
— The Court
(Expressing uncertainty about the precise meaning of a note from the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
Quote #3
"it’s a violation of New York penal law that’s charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they’re considering."Source
— The Court
(A reminder included in the instruction to the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
Quote #4
"travels to and from New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law."Source
— The defense
(Stating their legal position on the record.)
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
Quote #5
"wrong as a legal matter"Source
— The Court
(Characterizing the defense's suggestion for jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
Quote #6
"[t]he reading of the note that you’ve suggested, I have no idea if that’s what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings, and what you’ve proposed, as you just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that’s why precisely we sent them back to the charge."Source
— The Court
(Explaining why it rejected the defense's interpretation of the jury's note and the proposed response.)
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
Quote #7
"the jurors had the mistaken impression that it would be sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four"Source
— The defendant
(The defendant's interpretation of what the jury's note indicated.)
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
Quote #8
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,889 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 15 of 51
Two. (Tr. 3149). The Court also rejected the defense’s proposed final sentence as “just wrong,”
because it suggested that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity outside of New York “may
have no relevance.” (Id.). As the Court explained, “This is the same discussion we’ve had a couple
of times . . . . Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be
relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17, I
think.” (Tr. 3149-50). The Court repeated that it did “not know how to parse the jury’s question
exactly,” but that its instruction directing the jury to the original charge included a reminder that
“it’s a violation of New York penal law that’s charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they’re
considering.” (Tr. 3150). The defense made a further record of its views, including that “travels
to and from New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York
law.” (Tr. 3152-53). The Court explained that the defense suggestion was “wrong as a legal
matter” because it suggests that the testimony was “irrelevant,” and the Court also pointed out that
the defense did not “seek to exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction with
respect to that testimony.” (Tr. 3153). The Court added that “[t]he reading of the note that you’ve
suggested, I have no idea if that’s what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings, and
what you’ve proposed, as you just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that’s why precisely
we sent them back to the charge.” (Tr. 3154).
The defendant renews her arguments now, urging that the jury note shows that “the jurors
had the mistaken impression that it would be sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four
because it suggested that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity outside of New York “may
have no relevance.” (Id.). As the Court explained, “This is the same discussion we’ve had a couple
of times . . . . Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be
relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17, I
think.” (Tr. 3149-50). The Court repeated that it did “not know how to parse the jury’s question
exactly,” but that its instruction directing the jury to the original charge included a reminder that
“it’s a violation of New York penal law that’s charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they’re
considering.” (Tr. 3150). The defense made a further record of its views, including that “travels
to and from New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York
law.” (Tr. 3152-53). The Court explained that the defense suggestion was “wrong as a legal
matter” because it suggests that the testimony was “irrelevant,” and the Court also pointed out that
the defense did not “seek to exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction with
respect to that testimony.” (Tr. 3153). The Court added that “[t]he reading of the note that you’ve
suggested, I have no idea if that’s what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings, and
what you’ve proposed, as you just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that’s why precisely
we sent them back to the charge.” (Tr. 3154).
The defendant renews her arguments now, urging that the jury note shows that “the jurors
had the mistaken impression that it would be sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four
14
DOJ-OGR-00009577
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document