DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg
543 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
543 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing for a supplemental jury instruction regarding jurisdiction and the basis for conviction.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the discussion, rejecting the proposed instruction as incorrect.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of potential conviction on Count Four; mentioned in the context of the jury's deliberations.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Produced the transcript.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00020862.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Date of transcript)
Unknown (Prior to transcript)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Discussed as a location where conduct occurred; defense argues conduct solely here cannot violate NY law.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction whose laws are in question regarding the charges.
|
|
|
Mentioned in relation to travel to New York as a required fact for certain counts.
|
Relationships (1)
Everdell is arguing on behalf of Maxwell regarding jury instructions and conviction criteria.
Key Quotes (3)
"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
DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg
Quote #1
"I'm not going to give them an incorrect supplemental instruction."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020862.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
DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,551 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page36 of 221
A-236
A-236
3153
LCSCMAXT
LCSCMAXT
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-00020862
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document