DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
623 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
623 KB
Summary
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against a sentencing enhancement, disputing the reliability of a 'message pad' and arguing that the conspiracy effectively ended in 2004, meaning 2003 guidelines should apply. The defense also contests a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into the 2007 time period.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing regarding sentencing guidelines and evidence reliability.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, asking questions about leadership enhancement and variance arguments.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the sentencing hearing (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Footer information.
|
|
| The Government |
Referenced by Mr. Everdell regarding their brief and arguments about money received.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-07-22
Court hearing regarding sentencing guidelines and evidence weight.
Southern District of New York (implied)
Relationships (1)
Mr. Everdell is arguing on behalf of the defendant regarding sentencing guidelines.
Key Quotes (4)
"And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad is not sufficient for that purpose."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
Quote #1
"Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
Quote #2
"We argued the Court has discretion to sentence as if it were the 2003 guidelines."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
Quote #3
"I believe they pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,"Source
DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,726 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 27 of 101 27
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 submission about the Court has to consider the weight and
2 reliability of the evidence when determining a factor -- a
3 sentencing factor that is going to increase the guidelines,
4 especially by the amount that this is going to increase it by.
5 And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad
6 is not sufficient for that purpose. So if we're relying on a
7 factual record argument, there is not enough of evidence in the
8 record to support that the conspiracy ended in November or
9 December of 2004. Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply.
10 THE COURT: Okay. I have a question about the
11 leadership enhancement, as I said, but anything else you want
12 to raise that you didn't have the opportunity to raise in your
13 papers, Mr. Everdell?
14 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point about that
15 same book issue. I think there was a section of the
16 government's brief where they were trying to show -- this was
17 the point about the Court's discretion. We argued the Court
18 has discretion to sentence as if it were the 2003 guidelines.
19 I realize that might not be where the Court is headed, but I
20 would point out --
21 THE COURT: You mean as a variance argument.
22 MR. EVERDELL: Exactly. In that section, the
23 government made reference to an argument that the defendant was
24 receiving money into the 2007 time period. I believe they
25 pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,
2 reliability of the evidence when determining a factor -- a
3 sentencing factor that is going to increase the guidelines,
4 especially by the amount that this is going to increase it by.
5 And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad
6 is not sufficient for that purpose. So if we're relying on a
7 factual record argument, there is not enough of evidence in the
8 record to support that the conspiracy ended in November or
9 December of 2004. Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply.
10 THE COURT: Okay. I have a question about the
11 leadership enhancement, as I said, but anything else you want
12 to raise that you didn't have the opportunity to raise in your
13 papers, Mr. Everdell?
14 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point about that
15 same book issue. I think there was a section of the
16 government's brief where they were trying to show -- this was
17 the point about the Court's discretion. We argued the Court
18 has discretion to sentence as if it were the 2003 guidelines.
19 I realize that might not be where the Court is headed, but I
20 would point out --
21 THE COURT: You mean as a variance argument.
22 MR. EVERDELL: Exactly. In that section, the
23 government made reference to an argument that the defendant was
24 receiving money into the 2007 time period. I believe they
25 pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C..
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011546
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011546
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document