DOJ-OGR-00014614.jpg
656 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / jury charge
File Size:
656 KB
Summary
This document is page 214 of a court transcript (Document 767) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the judge's charge to the jury regarding the legal definition of a 'conspiracy.' The text explains that a conspiracy consists of a mutual understanding, express or implied, to violate the law, and notes that direct evidence of an explicit agreement is not required, as circumstantial evidence and conduct can prove the existence of such an agreement.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | Judge |
Speaker giving the jury instructions (implied by the text format and content).
|
| Jury | Audience |
Addressed as 'you' in the instructions.
|
| Co-conspirators | Subject of instruction |
Hypothetical or alleged individuals involved in a conspiracy.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in footer.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution entity bearing the burden of proof.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on the reporter's name and case ID format.
|
Relationships (1)
Text defines the relationship as a 'mutual understanding... to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan.'
Key Quotes (4)
"Conspirators do not usually reduce their agreements to writing or acknowledge them before a notary public, nor do they publicly broadcast their plans."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014614.jpg
Quote #1
"The old adage 'actions speak louder than words' applies here."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014614.jpg
Quote #2
"Common sense tells you that when people, in fact, agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy, much is left to the unexpressed understanding."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014614.jpg
Quote #3
"To show that a conspiracy existed, the government is not required to show that two or more people sat around a table and entered into a solemn pact orally or in writing"Source
DOJ-OGR-00014614.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,679 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 214 of 257 3048
LCKVMAX8 Charge
LCKVMAX8 Charge
1 that is, spoken or unspoken -- came to a mutual understanding
2 to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan.
3 Express language or specific words are not required to
4 indicate assent or attachment to a conspiracy. If you find
5 beyond a reasonable doubt that two or more persons came to an
6 understanding, express or implied, to violate the law and to
7 accomplish an unlawful plan, then the government will have
8 sustained its burden of proof as to this element.
9 To show that a conspiracy existed, the government is
10 not required to show that two or more people sat around a table
11 and entered into a solemn pact orally or in writing stating
12 that they had formed a conspiracy to violate the law, spelling
13 out all of the details. Common sense tells you that when
14 people, in fact, agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy,
15 much is left to the unexpressed understanding. It is rare that
16 a conspiracy can be proven by direct evidence of an explicit
17 agreement. Conspirators do not usually reduce their agreements
18 to writing or acknowledge them before a notary public, nor do
19 they publicly broadcast their plans.
20 In determining whether an agreement existed, you may
21 consider direct as well as circumstantial evidence. The old
22 adage "actions speak louder than words" applies here. Often
23 the only evidence that is available with respect to the
24 existence of a conspiracy is that of disconnected acts and
25 conduct on the part of the alleged individual co-conspirators.
2 to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan.
3 Express language or specific words are not required to
4 indicate assent or attachment to a conspiracy. If you find
5 beyond a reasonable doubt that two or more persons came to an
6 understanding, express or implied, to violate the law and to
7 accomplish an unlawful plan, then the government will have
8 sustained its burden of proof as to this element.
9 To show that a conspiracy existed, the government is
10 not required to show that two or more people sat around a table
11 and entered into a solemn pact orally or in writing stating
12 that they had formed a conspiracy to violate the law, spelling
13 out all of the details. Common sense tells you that when
14 people, in fact, agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy,
15 much is left to the unexpressed understanding. It is rare that
16 a conspiracy can be proven by direct evidence of an explicit
17 agreement. Conspirators do not usually reduce their agreements
18 to writing or acknowledge them before a notary public, nor do
19 they publicly broadcast their plans.
20 In determining whether an agreement existed, you may
21 consider direct as well as circumstantial evidence. The old
22 adage "actions speak louder than words" applies here. Often
23 the only evidence that is available with respect to the
24 existence of a conspiracy is that of disconnected acts and
25 conduct on the part of the alleged individual co-conspirators.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014614
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document