DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg
614 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
File Size:
614 KB
Summary
This document is page 19 of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the 2003 sentencing guidelines should apply rather than the 2004 guidelines to avoid violating the Ex Post Facto Clause, noting that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 240 months despite a calculated range of 292-365 months.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Counsel |
Addressing the court regarding sentencing guidelines and Ex Post Facto Clause arguments.
|
| The Court / Your Honor | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, inviting Mr. Everdell to speak.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Probation Department |
Calculated sentencing range of 292-365 months and recommended 240 months.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Produced the transcript.
|
|
| The Government |
Referenced by Everdell regarding their response to defense arguments.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-07-22
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the reporter's name (likely SDNY).
|
Relationships (1)
Everdell is arguing for specific sentencing guidelines favorable to the defense ('our initial argument').
Key Quotes (4)
"correct calculation is 360 to 660 months' imprisonment"Source
DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg
Quote #1
"The probation department has calculated the range at 292 to 365 months' imprisonment, but recommends a downward variance to a term of 240 months' imprisonment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg
Quote #2
"We argue that that is a jury determination because the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg
Quote #3
"So the 2003 guidelines must apply because the jury was never asked to make that factual determination."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,557 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 19 of 101 19
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 correct calculation is 360 to 660 months' imprisonment and
2 argues that a guideline sentence is warranted.
3 The probation department has calculated the range at
4 292 to 365 months' imprisonment, but recommends a downward
5 variance to a term of 240 months' imprisonment.
6 Counsel, I have reviewed your written arguments
7 carefully. I have a few questions I want to ask, but I don't
8 need to hear repetition of your written arguments, but I would
9 be happy to give you an opportunity to add anything beyond your
10 submission if you'd like to make any additional arguments.
11 I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.
13 I will largely rely on my written submissions. I just
14 would like to amplify one or two things.
15 Your Honor, our initial argument, of course, is that
16 the Court must resolve who is to make the determination about
17 which book like -- when the offense conduct ended, which
18 determines guidelines book applies: the 2003 or 2004
19 guidelines. We argue that that is a jury determination because
20 the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause. So the 2003
21 guidelines must apply because the jury was never asked to make
22 that factual determination.
23 I know your Honor is familiar with the arguments we
24 raised. I would just point out that the government in their
25 response really did not engage with our arguments about the
2 argues that a guideline sentence is warranted.
3 The probation department has calculated the range at
4 292 to 365 months' imprisonment, but recommends a downward
5 variance to a term of 240 months' imprisonment.
6 Counsel, I have reviewed your written arguments
7 carefully. I have a few questions I want to ask, but I don't
8 need to hear repetition of your written arguments, but I would
9 be happy to give you an opportunity to add anything beyond your
10 submission if you'd like to make any additional arguments.
11 I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.
13 I will largely rely on my written submissions. I just
14 would like to amplify one or two things.
15 Your Honor, our initial argument, of course, is that
16 the Court must resolve who is to make the determination about
17 which book like -- when the offense conduct ended, which
18 determines guidelines book applies: the 2003 or 2004
19 guidelines. We argue that that is a jury determination because
20 the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause. So the 2003
21 guidelines must apply because the jury was never asked to make
22 that factual determination.
23 I know your Honor is familiar with the arguments we
24 raised. I would just point out that the government in their
25 response really did not engage with our arguments about the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C..
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011538
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011538
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document