DOJ-OGR-00016988.jpg
642 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
642 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion about a 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that this instruction would improperly lead the jury to convict, while the court questions the basis of his argument regarding the defendant's knowledge of the crimes.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney (implied) |
Speaking to the court, arguing against a 'conscious avoidance' charge for the jury.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Addressing Mr. Everdell and questioning his argument regarding the jury charge.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument took place regarding the appropriateness of a 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction concerning the defendant's knowledge of victims' ages.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (1)
Mr. Everdell addresses the court as 'Your Honor' while presenting a legal argument in a formal court proceeding.
Key Quotes (2)
"Your Honor, I think this is inviting the jury, by considering the conscious avoidance charge, to convict on an improper basis that she must have known."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Arguing against the inclusion of a conscious avoidance instruction for the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00016988.jpg
Quote #1
"Could you just respond to the specific argument, because I think you started by saying there's been no contention as to a lack of knowledge with respect to any aspect of the crimes charged."Source
— THE COURT
(Questioning Mr. Everdell's argument and seeking clarification on the defense's position.)
DOJ-OGR-00016988.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,642 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 62 of 95 2800
LCIAMAX2ps
LCIAMAX2ps
1 Second of all, there are particular factual knowledge
2 elements that the defense is contesting. One is her knowledge
3 of the age of the victim. Another is her mens rea with regard
4 to the purposes of travel. And so for those things the jury
5 could reasonably conclude that she had sufficient -- that she
6 was engaging in conscious avoidance as to those particular
7 facts.
8 So, for example, to take the knowledge of age issue,
9 the defense has elicited testimony from several witnesses that
10 the defendant could not, was not aware that the various victims
11 were minors. The jury could conclude that she in fact did have
12 that knowledge. The jury could also conclude that she
13 consciously avoided having that knowledge. Those are both
14 reasonable theories available for the jury for which there is
15 an adequate factual predicate in the record, your Honor.
16 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think this is inviting
17 the jury, by considering the conscious avoidance charge, to
18 convict on an improper basis that she must have known.
19 THE COURT: Could you just respond to the specific
20 argument, because I think you started by saying there's been no
21 contention as to a lack of knowledge with respect to any aspect
22 of the crimes charged. So the specific contention and the
23 reason I had in my head to include it rather than not include
24 it -- which, for reasons you've indicated, is a case-by-case
25 analysis depending on what factual issues are in play. But on
2 elements that the defense is contesting. One is her knowledge
3 of the age of the victim. Another is her mens rea with regard
4 to the purposes of travel. And so for those things the jury
5 could reasonably conclude that she had sufficient -- that she
6 was engaging in conscious avoidance as to those particular
7 facts.
8 So, for example, to take the knowledge of age issue,
9 the defense has elicited testimony from several witnesses that
10 the defendant could not, was not aware that the various victims
11 were minors. The jury could conclude that she in fact did have
12 that knowledge. The jury could also conclude that she
13 consciously avoided having that knowledge. Those are both
14 reasonable theories available for the jury for which there is
15 an adequate factual predicate in the record, your Honor.
16 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think this is inviting
17 the jury, by considering the conscious avoidance charge, to
18 convict on an improper basis that she must have known.
19 THE COURT: Could you just respond to the specific
20 argument, because I think you started by saying there's been no
21 contention as to a lack of knowledge with respect to any aspect
22 of the crimes charged. So the specific contention and the
23 reason I had in my head to include it rather than not include
24 it -- which, for reasons you've indicated, is a case-by-case
25 analysis depending on what factual issues are in play. But on
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016988
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document