DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
595 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
595 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell argues that conduct and travel occurring solely in New Mexico cannot legally form the basis for a conviction of his client, Ms. Maxwell, under New York law, and he requests a supplemental jury instruction to this effect. The judge rejects the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that Mr. Everdell failed to seek to exclude the related testimony earlier.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaking with Mr. Everdell, rejecting a proposed supplemental jury instruction.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
Arguing for a specific jury instruction regarding the relevance of conduct in New Mexico to a charge under New York law.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the person who may be convicted on Count Four based on conduct related to New Mexico.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion between the Court and Mr. Everdell regarding a supplemental jury instruction concerning the geographical basis for a conviction on Count Four.
A past conference where Mr. Everdell requested the inclusion of travel from Florida to New York as a required fact for certain counts.
Travel from Florida to New York, mentioned as a required fact to be proven for certain counts.
Florida to New York
Travel to and from New Mexico, discussed as a potential basis for conviction.
New Mexico
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Discussed as the location of alleged conduct and travel which may form the basis of a conviction.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of 'New York law' and as a destination for travel from Florida.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the origin point for travel to New York.
|
Relationships (2)
The document is a transcript of a legal argument between Mr. Everdell (attorney) and the Court (judge) during a trial.
Mr. Everdell is arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, who is facing conviction on Count Four, indicating he is her legal counsel.
Key Quotes (4)
"I'll say that is wrong as a legal matter, number 1."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's response to the argument that conduct solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law.)
DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
Quote #1
"I'm not going to give them an incorrect supplemental instruction."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge's rejection of Mr. Everdell's request for a supplemental jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
Quote #2
"I think the jury is saying that they may convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely relates to New Mexico."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Mr. Everdell's interpretation of a jury note and the reason for his request for a clarifying instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
Quote #3
"What I am saying is if all they had - which is what I think the note is saying - is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual conduct that occurs solely in New Mexico, travels to and from New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law --"Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Mr. Everdell articulating his legal argument about the jurisdictional limits of New York law concerning events in New Mexico.)
DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,543 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7 of 16 3153
LCSCMAXI
LCSCMAXI
1 conduct that occurs solely in New Mexico, travels to and from
2 New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a
3 violation of New York law --
4 THE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a
5 basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong
6 as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to
7 exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction
8 with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe
9 for all of the reasons we've articulated.
10 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we
11 did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of
12 travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the
13 required facts to be proven for those counts.
14 In any event, I think this is a time that calls for a
15 supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has
16 rejected --
17 THE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect
18 supplemental instruction.
19 MR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction
20 that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft
21 a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they may
22 convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely
23 relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What
24 I am saying is if all they had - which is what I think the note
25 is saying - is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual
2 New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a
3 violation of New York law --
4 THE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a
5 basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong
6 as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to
7 exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction
8 with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe
9 for all of the reasons we've articulated.
10 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we
11 did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of
12 travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the
13 required facts to be proven for those counts.
14 In any event, I think this is a time that calls for a
15 supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has
16 rejected --
17 THE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect
18 supplemental instruction.
19 MR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction
20 that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft
21 a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they may
22 convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely
23 relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What
24 I am saying is if all they had - which is what I think the note
25 is saying - is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014723
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document