DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg
575 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
575 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the government's proposed jury instructions are confusing and contrasts them with the defense's position. The argument centers on jurisdiction and the age of consent, specifically regarding 'Accuser 2' and acts committed in New Mexico that were allegedly legal under New Mexico law at the time, versus how they are treated under New York conspiracy law.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing for the defense regarding jury instructions and jurisdiction issues.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing and correcting the attorney regarding legal jurisdiction.
|
| Accuser 2 | Alleged Victim/Witness |
Mentioned as the subject of alleged events in New Mexico involving age of consent issues.
|
| Jurors | Jury |
The intended audience for the legal instructions being debated.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Transcription service listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by DOJ-OGR stamp).
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution, whose jury instructions are being criticized by the defense.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Court hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330.
Courtroom (Southern District of New York implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where alleged acts involving Accuser 2 took place; discussed regarding its specific age of consent laws.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction whose laws are being applied to the conspiracy charge.
|
Relationships (2)
Dialogue in transcript, addressing 'Your Honor'.
Transcript states 'alleged events that took place in New Mexico' involving her.
Key Quotes (3)
"I think your Honor identified the correct example, which is Accuser 2, which is alleged events that took place in New Mexico when she was above the age of consent for those acts in New Mexico."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg
Quote #1
"And so this illustrates the problem of trying to prove a conspiracy where the illegal sexual activity is a violation of New York law with acts that took place in other jurisdictions which were legal and have nothing to do with New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg
Quote #2
"MR. EVERDELL: Under New Mexico law. I'm sorry. I misspoke. Under New Mexico law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,463 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 32 of 43 32
LBNAMAXTps
LBNAMAXTps
1 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I mean, it's the
2 defense's position that the Court's instruction is a correct
3 statement of law. It's concise, it's clear, and will clarify
4 the issues for the jurors as opposed to confuse the issues. I
5 think the government's instruction is exactly the opposite. It
6 is cumbersome, it is difficult to follow, and it will confuse
7 rather than to clarify.
8 And I will just point out, I think your Honor
9 identified the correct example, which is Accuser 2, which is
10 alleged events that took place in New Mexico when she was above
11 the age of consent for those acts in New Mexico.
12 And so this illustrates the problem of trying to prove
13 a conspiracy where the illegal sexual activity is a violation
14 of New York law with acts that took place in other
15 jurisdictions which were legal and have nothing to do with New
16 York law.
17 So as I think you've discussed before, your Honor, if
18 the witness is going to testify to these events that took place
19 in New Mexico, even though they're legal under New York law --
20 there's no issue there -- they're going to --
21 THE COURT: Not under New York law.
22 MR. EVERDELL: Under New Mexico law. I'm sorry. I
23 misspoke. Under New Mexico law.
24 THE COURT: Right.
25 MR. EVERDELL: They're going to assume that the
2 defense's position that the Court's instruction is a correct
3 statement of law. It's concise, it's clear, and will clarify
4 the issues for the jurors as opposed to confuse the issues. I
5 think the government's instruction is exactly the opposite. It
6 is cumbersome, it is difficult to follow, and it will confuse
7 rather than to clarify.
8 And I will just point out, I think your Honor
9 identified the correct example, which is Accuser 2, which is
10 alleged events that took place in New Mexico when she was above
11 the age of consent for those acts in New Mexico.
12 And so this illustrates the problem of trying to prove
13 a conspiracy where the illegal sexual activity is a violation
14 of New York law with acts that took place in other
15 jurisdictions which were legal and have nothing to do with New
16 York law.
17 So as I think you've discussed before, your Honor, if
18 the witness is going to testify to these events that took place
19 in New Mexico, even though they're legal under New York law --
20 there's no issue there -- they're going to --
21 THE COURT: Not under New York law.
22 MR. EVERDELL: Under New Mexico law. I'm sorry. I
23 misspoke. Under New Mexico law.
24 THE COURT: Right.
25 MR. EVERDELL: They're going to assume that the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011653
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document