DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
660 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
660 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, where an attorney argues a legal point to a judge. The attorney contends that determining the end date of an offense, which is critical for an Ex Post Facto Clause violation claim, is a factual question for the jury, not a Sixth Amendment issue for the judge as per the Apprendi line of cases. The attorney cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion as support and notes that the government has not responded to this specific argument.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as having overruled a previous decision related to sentencing.
|
| The government | government agency |
Mentioned as the opposing party in the legal argument, which has allegedly not responded to the speaker's point.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-07-22
An attorney presents a legal argument distinguishing an Ex Post Facto issue from a Sixth Amendment Apprendi issue, arguing a specific decision should be made by the jury.
Court in the Southern District
Unnamed speaker (attorney)
Honor (Judge)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting company, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Key Quotes (3)
"Under the cases that we've cited, your Honor, we think that that is an issue for the jury to decide, and it is not really in the Apprendi line of cases."Source
— Unnamed speaker (attorney)
(The speaker is arguing that the factual determination underlying an ex post facto claim should be decided by the jury, distinguishing it from legal issues decided by a judge under the Apprendi precedent.)
DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
Quote #1
"This decision about whether or not the offense conduct ended at a certain time, if it triggers an increase that implicates the ex post facto clause is a decision for the jury to make."Source
— Unnamed speaker (attorney)
(Summarizing the core of the legal argument being presented to the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
Quote #2
"The government has not responded to that argument, and we think that that is a"Source
— Unnamed speaker (attorney)
(Concluding the argument by pointing out that the opposing side (the government) has not addressed this specific legal point.)
DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,711 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 20 of 101 20
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 issue of the Ex Post Facto Clause being implicated. They want
2 to cast this as purely a Sixth Amendment issue and cited cases
3 along the Apprendi lines. But this is an ex post facto issue
4 properly framed. This decision of when the offense conduct
5 ended implicates whether or not an ex post facto violation will
6 occur if the later guidelines is applied.
7 Under the cases that we've cited, your Honor, we think
8 that that is an issue for the jury to decide, and it is not
9 really in the Apprendi line of cases. It is focused on
10 ex post facto law. I just, for example, highlight for your
11 Honor the Tykarsky opinion that we cited for the Court. That
12 is not an Apprendi decision. That is not a Sixth Amendment
13 decision. In that case, there was an increase in the mandatory
14 minimum that took effect potentially after the offense conduct
15 ended. It's interesting that at the time the law was that you
16 could do that, a judge could make a finding and increase it as
17 long as it didn't increase beyond the statutory maximum, so
18 there was no Apprendi issue there. That decision later got
19 overruled by the Supreme Court, but at the time of Tykarsky, it
20 clearly wasn't a Sixth Amendment Apprendi issue. They resolved
21 that issue on an ex post facto basis. This decision about
22 whether or not the offense conduct ended at a certain time, if
23 it triggers an increase that implicates the ex post facto
24 clause is a decision for the jury to make. The government has
25 not responded to that argument, and we think that that is a
2 to cast this as purely a Sixth Amendment issue and cited cases
3 along the Apprendi lines. But this is an ex post facto issue
4 properly framed. This decision of when the offense conduct
5 ended implicates whether or not an ex post facto violation will
6 occur if the later guidelines is applied.
7 Under the cases that we've cited, your Honor, we think
8 that that is an issue for the jury to decide, and it is not
9 really in the Apprendi line of cases. It is focused on
10 ex post facto law. I just, for example, highlight for your
11 Honor the Tykarsky opinion that we cited for the Court. That
12 is not an Apprendi decision. That is not a Sixth Amendment
13 decision. In that case, there was an increase in the mandatory
14 minimum that took effect potentially after the offense conduct
15 ended. It's interesting that at the time the law was that you
16 could do that, a judge could make a finding and increase it as
17 long as it didn't increase beyond the statutory maximum, so
18 there was no Apprendi issue there. That decision later got
19 overruled by the Supreme Court, but at the time of Tykarsky, it
20 clearly wasn't a Sixth Amendment Apprendi issue. They resolved
21 that issue on an ex post facto basis. This decision about
22 whether or not the offense conduct ended at a certain time, if
23 it triggers an increase that implicates the ex post facto
24 clause is a decision for the jury to make. The government has
25 not responded to that argument, and we think that that is a
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011539
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document