DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
588 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
588 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 22, 2022. It details a discussion between a judge, government attorney Ms. Moe, and another attorney, Mr. Everdell, about whether a criminal offense continued into November and December of 2004. The determination is critical for deciding if the 2004 sentencing manual applies, with the government arguing it does based on the trial testimony of a crime victim.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, asking questions and framing the legal issue.
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
Answering a question from the Court.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Arguing on behalf of the government regarding the applicability of the 2004 Manual.
|
| crime victim | Witness |
Mentioned as having testified at a prior trial that the offense continued past November 1, 2004.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | Government agency |
A party in the case, represented by Ms. Moe, arguing that the 2004 Manual applies.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2004-11-01
A crime victim's testimony established that an offense continued past this date.
2004-11-01 to 2004-12-31
The court is considering whether conspiratorial conduct took place during this two-month window.
2022-08-22
A legal argument was held regarding the timeline of an offense and the applicable sentencing manual.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
Mr. Everdell addresses the Court as 'your Honor' while participating in a legal proceeding.
Ms. Moe addresses the Court as 'your Honor' and presents legal arguments.
Both are attorneys participating in the same court hearing, presenting arguments to the judge, suggesting they represent opposing sides.
Key Quotes (3)
"The government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in this case."Source
— MS. MOE
(Stating the government's position on the legal issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
Quote #1
"The testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1, 2004."Source
— MS. MOE
(Providing the evidentiary basis for the government's argument about the offense's timeline.)
DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
Quote #2
"It seems to me the question is can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time window, basically November and December 2004."Source
— THE COURT
(Summarizing and framing the central legal and factual question for the hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,467 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 21 of 101
M6SQmaxl
M6SQmaxl
1 persuasive -- along with the other sources and opinions we've
2 cited, it's persuasive authority for the fact this is a jury
3 decision, not a Court determination.
4 THE COURT: Are you leaving that argument?
5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: We'll do a little back-and-forth so I have
7 everybody's arguments in mind. Thank you.
8 Go ahead, Ms. Moe.
9 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
10 The government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in
11 this case. I believe we did engage with the ex post facto
12 issue thoroughly in our brief. The question is whether the
13 factual record at trial establishes that the offense continued
14 throughout the duration of 2004, which it emphatically did.
15 The testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial
16 establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1,
17 2004.
18 THE COURT: So I think the framing of the question
19 here is very important and its technical -- this whole
20 discussion is very technical. It seems to me the question is
21 can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence
22 that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time
23 window, basically November and December 2004. That is what's
24 in issue, and the question is what the trial record establishes
25 with respect to that two-month window.
2 cited, it's persuasive authority for the fact this is a jury
3 decision, not a Court determination.
4 THE COURT: Are you leaving that argument?
5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: We'll do a little back-and-forth so I have
7 everybody's arguments in mind. Thank you.
8 Go ahead, Ms. Moe.
9 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
10 The government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in
11 this case. I believe we did engage with the ex post facto
12 issue thoroughly in our brief. The question is whether the
13 factual record at trial establishes that the offense continued
14 throughout the duration of 2004, which it emphatically did.
15 The testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial
16 establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1,
17 2004.
18 THE COURT: So I think the framing of the question
19 here is very important and its technical -- this whole
20 discussion is very technical. It seems to me the question is
21 can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence
22 that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time
23 window, basically November and December 2004. That is what's
24 in issue, and the question is what the trial record establishes
25 with respect to that two-month window.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
•
•
•
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014768
•
•
•
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014768
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document