DOJ-OGR-00021568.jpg
528 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal proceeding
File Size:
528 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) featuring a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the Court regarding the timeline of a conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that the conspiracy was active throughout 2004 and 2005, citing testimony from a witness named Carolyn who visited Epstein's house continually during that period at ages 17 and 18. The discussion focuses on the legal burden of proof regarding withdrawal from a conspiracy.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney/Prosecutor |
Arguing the government's position regarding the duration of the conspiracy and the burden of proof.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Questioning Ms. Moe's argument regarding what constitutes conspiracy conduct versus non-conspiracy conduct.
|
| Carolyn | Witness/Victim |
Testified that she was continually going to Epstein's house through age 17 and 18 (during 2004 and 2005).
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Alleged Co-conspirator |
Mentioned as the owner of the house where Carolyn visited.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the conspiracy charge; Ms. Moe argues it is the defendant's burden to show withdrawal from the conspiracy.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting service listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Carolyn testified she visited continually through ages 17 and 18.
|
Relationships (2)
Testimony regarding Carolyn continually going to Epstein's house through age 17 and 18.
Key Quotes (4)
"The question is whether a conspiracy was still ongoing throughout 2004."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021568.jpg
Quote #1
"Carolyn testified that she was continually going to Epstein's house through age 17 and through age 18, which would have been throughout the duration of 2004 and 2005."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021568.jpg
Quote #2
"The government is not required to show that any conspirator took an action in between those specific dates because the question is when did the conspiracy terminate?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021568.jpg
Quote #3
"what you point to to make that argument is definitionally non-conspiracy conduct."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021568.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,530 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page138 of 217
SA-392
23
M6SQmax1
1 evidence.
2 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. I think our point is that
3 the conspiracy was still live at the end of 2004, and we know
4 that because in fact the conspiracy was still ongoing beyond
5 that, and I don't mean to be --
6 THE COURT: But, see, just in that sentence, the
7 conspiracy was going on beyond that, what you point to, I
8 think -- and tell me if I should look at something else, but
9 what you point to to make that argument is definitionally
10 non-conspiracy conduct.
11 MS. MOE: No, your Honor, in part because -- well, to
12 step back and discuss the framing of the issue. The question
13 is whether a conspiracy was still ongoing throughout 2004. And
14 the key thought tells us it's the defendant's burden to show
15 that she withdraw from the conspiracy if it was ongoing. The
16 question is in framing it, when did this conspiracy end. We
17 know that it was still live as of the end of 2004, in fact,
18 because, among other reasons, Carolyn testified that she was
19 continually going to Epstein's house through age 17 and through
20 age 18, which would have been throughout the duration of 2004
21 and 2005.
22 The government is not required to show that any
23 conspirator took an action in between those specific dates
24 because the question is when did the conspiracy terminate? Was
25 it still live at the end of 2004? And the evidence here shows
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ...
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021568
SA-392
23
M6SQmax1
1 evidence.
2 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. I think our point is that
3 the conspiracy was still live at the end of 2004, and we know
4 that because in fact the conspiracy was still ongoing beyond
5 that, and I don't mean to be --
6 THE COURT: But, see, just in that sentence, the
7 conspiracy was going on beyond that, what you point to, I
8 think -- and tell me if I should look at something else, but
9 what you point to to make that argument is definitionally
10 non-conspiracy conduct.
11 MS. MOE: No, your Honor, in part because -- well, to
12 step back and discuss the framing of the issue. The question
13 is whether a conspiracy was still ongoing throughout 2004. And
14 the key thought tells us it's the defendant's burden to show
15 that she withdraw from the conspiracy if it was ongoing. The
16 question is in framing it, when did this conspiracy end. We
17 know that it was still live as of the end of 2004, in fact,
18 because, among other reasons, Carolyn testified that she was
19 continually going to Epstein's house through age 17 and through
20 age 18, which would have been throughout the duration of 2004
21 and 2005.
22 The government is not required to show that any
23 conspirator took an action in between those specific dates
24 because the question is when did the conspiracy terminate? Was
25 it still live at the end of 2004? And the evidence here shows
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ...
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021568
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document