DOJ-OGR-00000690.jpg
637 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
637 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, where an attorney argues against an article by Professor Green that opposes victim participation in legal proceedings. The attorney contends this view is inconsistent with the Crime Victim Rights Act, especially in the context of Mr. Epstein's prosecution, and asserts that the purpose of modern criminal law is to mitigate harm to victims. The attorney also informs the court of their advice to their clients that the government must move to dismiss the case.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Dershowitz |
Mentioned as a person against whom a case was brought, in the context of a potential conflict of interest involving P...
|
|
| Professor Green | Professor |
Mentioned as the author of an article in the Law Journal opposing victims having a voice in a proceeding. The speaker...
|
| Mr. Epstein |
Mentioned as the person being prosecuted under a statute related to the Crime Victim Rights Act.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Law Journal | publication |
Mentioned as the publisher of an article by Professor Green. The speaker suggests it should have disclosed a connecti...
|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as having made clear the purpose of criminal law through various statutes.
|
| the Court | government agency |
The judicial body being addressed by the speaker during a hearing.
|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned as the entity that the speaker believes has no alternative but to move to dismiss the case.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2019-09-03
An attorney addresses the court regarding an article by Professor Green, the rights of victims under the Crime Victim Rights Act in Mr. Epstein's prosecution, and a potential motion to dismiss the case.
Courtroom
Unnamed speaker (attorney)
The Court (judge)
The speaker's clients (mentioned)
Relationships (2)
The speaker alleges a "connection" between Professor Green (or the Law Journal) and Mr. Dershowitz that they believe constitutes a conflict of interest and should have been disclosed.
Unnamed speaker
→
attorney-client
→
my clients
The speaker states, "I have discussed this hearing with my clients. I have told them that..."
Key Quotes (2)
"...the purpose of the criminal law is no longer simply to punish the individual defendant, but it is to find some way of trying to mitigate the damage that has been done to the victims..."Source
— Unnamed speaker
(Explaining the policy underlying the Crime Victim Rights Act and other statutes.)
DOJ-OGR-00000690.jpg
Quote #1
"I have told them that, under the applicable law, the government has no alternative but to move to dismiss this case..."Source
— Unnamed speaker
(Recounting a discussion with their clients in response to a question from the Court.)
DOJ-OGR-00000690.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,564 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 53 Filed 09/03/19 Page 52 of 86
J8RPEPS2
J8RPEPS2
brought against Mr. Dershowitz, but I would have expected that
the Law Journal or Professor Green himself would have disclosed
that connection, which I think is a conflict.
But regardless of the appropriateness of his
disclosure, or lack of disclosure, I think that his article
opposing allowing the victims to have a voice in this
proceeding is inconsistent not only with the policy that
underlies the Crime Victim Rights Act and the very statute that
Mr. Epstein is being prosecuted under, but it ignores the
actual language of those statutes, and many other statutes, in
which Congress has made clear that the purpose of the criminal
law is no longer simply to punish the individual defendant, but
it is to find some way of trying to mitigate the damage that
has been done to the victims through restitution and economic
mitigation, but also through the ability to confront and to
have the court system and the justice system and the
prosecutors treat these victims as they are victims, as they
are human beings, and they are entitled to the respect that our
society needs to give every human being. So I think that this
is not only commendable, but I think it is what the law
requires.
In response to the question the Court asked, I have
discussed this hearing with my clients. I have told them that,
under the applicable law, the government has no alternative but
to move to dismiss this case, and I believe under the
the Law Journal or Professor Green himself would have disclosed
that connection, which I think is a conflict.
But regardless of the appropriateness of his
disclosure, or lack of disclosure, I think that his article
opposing allowing the victims to have a voice in this
proceeding is inconsistent not only with the policy that
underlies the Crime Victim Rights Act and the very statute that
Mr. Epstein is being prosecuted under, but it ignores the
actual language of those statutes, and many other statutes, in
which Congress has made clear that the purpose of the criminal
law is no longer simply to punish the individual defendant, but
it is to find some way of trying to mitigate the damage that
has been done to the victims through restitution and economic
mitigation, but also through the ability to confront and to
have the court system and the justice system and the
prosecutors treat these victims as they are victims, as they
are human beings, and they are entitled to the respect that our
society needs to give every human being. So I think that this
is not only commendable, but I think it is what the law
requires.
In response to the question the Court asked, I have
discussed this hearing with my clients. I have told them that,
under the applicable law, the government has no alternative but
to move to dismiss this case, and I believe under the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000690
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document