DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg
457 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal exhibit
File Size:
457 KB
Summary
This document is page 82 of a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as an exhibit (A-5925) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The text captures a legal argument by Ms. Davis referencing the 'Parse' case (likely United States v. Parse) and a letter from juror Catherine Conrad. The argument focuses on the legal distinction between 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' in the context of tax evasion and conspiracy counts, and how the jury's split verdict demonstrates a lack of prejudice and a deliberate decision-making process. This appears to be a citation of precedent used during post-trial motions in the Maxwell trial.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| David Parse | Defendant (in referenced case) |
Subject of the legal argument regarding a split verdict and prejudice.
|
| Catherine Conrad | Juror (in referenced case) |
Wrote a letter to the government regarding jury deliberations in the Parse case.
|
| Mr. Shechtman | Attorney |
Defense attorney mentioned in relation to a brief; interrupts briefly in court.
|
| Ms. Davis | Attorney |
Speaker presenting arguments to the court regarding the verdict and mens rea.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding official thanking Ms. Davis.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed at the bottom of the page.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-02-24
Filing date of the document in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Court
Unknown
Court hearing regarding jury deliberations and verdict validity (likely the Parse case being cited as precedent).
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY), implied by the reporters' organization.
|
Relationships (2)
Conrad wrote a letter discussing deliberations regarding Parse.
Shechtman filed a brief regarding Parse's case.
Key Quotes (3)
"where there has been a split verdict, as is the case with Mr. Parse, that is evidence of a lack of prejudice."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg
Quote #1
"their verdict exactly tracked that difference between wilfully... and knowingly"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg
Quote #2
"To the extent we can even be considering that letter at all because of Rule 606(b)"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,512 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 82 of 117
A-5925
A-5925
23
CAC3PARC
1 has stated that you can find that where there has been a split
2 verdict, as is the case with Mr. Parse, that is evidence of a
3 lack of prejudice. We had argued in the original motion for
4 new trial and we renew that as well.
5 Finally, your Honor, with regard to the letter of
6 Catherine Conrad to the government which was referenced in the
7 defendant's briefing, she talked about their discussions and
8 deliberations with regard to David Parse. And interestingly
9 what she also said, which was not mentioned by Mr. Shechtman in
10 his brief, was that that struggle ended when they asked the
11 Court to reread the definitions of wilfully and knowingly.
12 Different states for different counts.
13 MR. SHECHTMAN: Well, I'll wait. I apologize to the
14 Court.
15 MS. DAVIS: And interestingly, their verdict exactly
16 tracked that difference between wilfully, this was required in
17 the conspiracy count and for the tax evasion counts, and
18 knowingly which was really the mens rea relating to other ones.
19 So you might say that they had a struggle.
20 To the extent we can even be considering that letter
21 at all because of Rule 606(b), but I think it's quite clear
22 that they made a deliberate and informed decision about making
23 a distinction drawn on the evidence as apply to the law. Thank
24 you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Davis.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
CAC3PARC
1 has stated that you can find that where there has been a split
2 verdict, as is the case with Mr. Parse, that is evidence of a
3 lack of prejudice. We had argued in the original motion for
4 new trial and we renew that as well.
5 Finally, your Honor, with regard to the letter of
6 Catherine Conrad to the government which was referenced in the
7 defendant's briefing, she talked about their discussions and
8 deliberations with regard to David Parse. And interestingly
9 what she also said, which was not mentioned by Mr. Shechtman in
10 his brief, was that that struggle ended when they asked the
11 Court to reread the definitions of wilfully and knowingly.
12 Different states for different counts.
13 MR. SHECHTMAN: Well, I'll wait. I apologize to the
14 Court.
15 MS. DAVIS: And interestingly, their verdict exactly
16 tracked that difference between wilfully, this was required in
17 the conspiracy count and for the tax evasion counts, and
18 knowingly which was really the mens rea relating to other ones.
19 So you might say that they had a struggle.
20 To the extent we can even be considering that letter
21 at all because of Rule 606(b), but I think it's quite clear
22 that they made a deliberate and informed decision about making
23 a distinction drawn on the evidence as apply to the law. Thank
24 you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Davis.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009501
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document