DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
581 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
581 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing regarding the relevance of witness testimony to New York law violations.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, overruling the objection, and correcting the defense's interpretation of conspiracy vs su...
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Prosecutor (implied) |
Mentioned by the Court as having previously pointed out the defense's conflation of conspiracy and substantive counts.
|
| Annie | Witness |
Testimony discussed regarding conduct in New Mexico/Arizona.
|
| Kate | Witness |
Testimony mentioned in relation to the conspiracy charge.
|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Testimony mentioned in relation to the conspiracy charge.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Testimony cited by defense as the only evidence potentially linking the conspiracy to a crime.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Footer information
|
|
| DOJ |
Bates stamp prefix (DOJ-OGR)
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Court filing date of the transcript document.
Southern District of New York (implied by Case header)
Unknown (Trial Date)
Legal argument regarding jury instructions and admissibility of testimony for conspiracy counts.
Courtroom
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of law being discussed; location of conspiracy violation.
|
|
|
Location where specific conduct/planning occurred.
|
|
|
Correction made by speaker regarding where specific conduct originated or occurred.
|
|
|
Reference to a location that is 'not New York' (likely Little St. James).
|
Relationships (2)
Dialogue exchange in transcript.
Court states: 'So Annie, for example, the evidence is the conduct occurred in New Mexico.'
Key Quotes (5)
"invitation to an island that's not New York doesn't count."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
Quote #1
"So there's no connection to New York law with respect to Annie's testimony either."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
Quote #2
"You're doing precisely what Mr. Rohrbach said, which is you're switching back and forth between the conspiracy and the substantive count."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
Quote #3
"You don't have to have the violation of New York law to establish the elements of the conspiracy count."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
Quote #4
"So the objection is overruled."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,464 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 11 of 95
2749
LCI1MAX1
2749
LCI1MAX1
1 of the conspiracy is to violate New York law, then an
2 invitation to an island that's not New York doesn't count.
3 And also, an invitation to travel to New Mexico to do
4 whatever it is they were planning on doing in New Mexico is
5 also not a goal of violating New York law. I'm sorry, from
6 Arizona. So there's no connection to New York law with respect
7 to Annie's testimony either.
8 And so whatever purpose they want to glean from those
9 two witnesses' testimony, Kate and Annie, or even Carolyn, the
10 object of this conspiracy, for this to be a crime, it can only
11 be hung on the testimony, at least in the evidence in the
12 record, the testimony of Jane. And --
13 THE COURT: You're doing precisely what Mr. Rohrbach
14 said, which is you're switching back and forth between the
15 conspiracy and the substantive count. So Annie, for example,
16 the evidence is the conduct occurred in New Mexico. That's why
17 I gave the limiting instruction. But that could be considered
18 with other evidence of the conspiracy with respect to New York,
19 the violation of New York law. You don't have to have the
20 violation of New York law to establish the elements of the
21 conspiracy count.
22 So the objection is overruled.
23 Next.
24 MR. EVERDELL: All right. Next is line 13, your
25 Honor, same page.
2 invitation to an island that's not New York doesn't count.
3 And also, an invitation to travel to New Mexico to do
4 whatever it is they were planning on doing in New Mexico is
5 also not a goal of violating New York law. I'm sorry, from
6 Arizona. So there's no connection to New York law with respect
7 to Annie's testimony either.
8 And so whatever purpose they want to glean from those
9 two witnesses' testimony, Kate and Annie, or even Carolyn, the
10 object of this conspiracy, for this to be a crime, it can only
11 be hung on the testimony, at least in the evidence in the
12 record, the testimony of Jane. And --
13 THE COURT: You're doing precisely what Mr. Rohrbach
14 said, which is you're switching back and forth between the
15 conspiracy and the substantive count. So Annie, for example,
16 the evidence is the conduct occurred in New Mexico. That's why
17 I gave the limiting instruction. But that could be considered
18 with other evidence of the conspiracy with respect to New York,
19 the violation of New York law. You don't have to have the
20 violation of New York law to establish the elements of the
21 conspiracy count.
22 So the objection is overruled.
23 Next.
24 MR. EVERDELL: All right. Next is line 13, your
25 Honor, same page.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016937
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016937
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document