DOJ-OGR-00016953.jpg
607 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
607 KB
Summary
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing before the Judge regarding legal definitions of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'causation' in relation to interstate travel statutes. The discussion focuses on whether the persuasion must be the direct cause of the travel for the statute to be satisfied.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing regarding the wording of jury instructions or statutory interpretation concerning causation and inducement.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, questioning the defense attorney about the proposed language and legal precedent.
|
| She | Defendant (Implied) |
Referenced in line 1 regarding the requirement that 'she caused the travel'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated by the Bates stamp prefix DOJ-OGR.
|
|
| The Government |
Referenced by Mr. Everdell regarding their potential objection to the language.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on the court reporter's name (likely SDNY).
|
Relationships (1)
Dialogue exchange in court transcript.
Key Quotes (3)
"the persuasion, inducement, or enticement must have caused the individual to travel in interstate commerce"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016953.jpg
Quote #1
"I mean, I've seen this charge in a variety of cases. I've never seen that language."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016953.jpg
Quote #2
"it is possible to be persuaded, induced or enticed, and then not actually travel."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016953.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,554 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 27 of 95 2765
LCI1MAX1
LCI1MAX1
1 induced the travel, and a separate requirement that she caused
2 the travel. And there's no causal obligation or causal
3 requirement in the statute above and beyond the persuasion,
4 inducement type causal requirement.
5 MR. EVERDELL: I mean, your Honor, if the objection is
6 to the preamble by saying, "This element is satisfied only if,"
7 we could modify that a bit, if the government's saying that is
8 too strong, but the guts of the suggestion is that the
9 persuasion, inducement, or enticement must have caused the
10 individual to travel in interstate commerce, as alleged in the
11 indictment.
12 THE COURT: I mean, I've seen this charge in a variety
13 of cases. I've never seen that language. This decision is
14 2010. Have you ever seen it in a charge?
15 MR. EVERDELL: I can't say that I have, your Honor.
16 But it is interpreting the very words of the statute that are
17 at issue here, and I don't think this is the way that -- the
18 proposal I'm proposing is not trying to belabor the point, but
19 it is trying to raise the issue of causation.
20 THE COURT: I mean, the opinion includes further
21 definition of the words that are subject to the ordinary
22 meaning, the paragraph above that you point to.
23 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'll add that it is
24 possible to be persuaded, induced or enticed, and then not
25 actually travel. I mean, the persuasion does have to cause the
2 the travel. And there's no causal obligation or causal
3 requirement in the statute above and beyond the persuasion,
4 inducement type causal requirement.
5 MR. EVERDELL: I mean, your Honor, if the objection is
6 to the preamble by saying, "This element is satisfied only if,"
7 we could modify that a bit, if the government's saying that is
8 too strong, but the guts of the suggestion is that the
9 persuasion, inducement, or enticement must have caused the
10 individual to travel in interstate commerce, as alleged in the
11 indictment.
12 THE COURT: I mean, I've seen this charge in a variety
13 of cases. I've never seen that language. This decision is
14 2010. Have you ever seen it in a charge?
15 MR. EVERDELL: I can't say that I have, your Honor.
16 But it is interpreting the very words of the statute that are
17 at issue here, and I don't think this is the way that -- the
18 proposal I'm proposing is not trying to belabor the point, but
19 it is trying to raise the issue of causation.
20 THE COURT: I mean, the opinion includes further
21 definition of the words that are subject to the ordinary
22 meaning, the paragraph above that you point to.
23 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'll add that it is
24 possible to be persuaded, induced or enticed, and then not
25 actually travel. I mean, the persuasion does have to cause the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016953
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document