HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262.jpg
1.92 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Manuscript / memoir draft (legal narrative)
File Size:
1.92 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of the 'Tison v. Arizona' case discussed) describing Supreme Court oral arguments. The text details the legal debate regarding the 'felony murder' rule, specifically whether the brothers (Ricky and Raymond) had the specific intent to kill the Lyons family or were merely present. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of the Congressional investigation into the handling of the Epstein case, likely included to illustrate the author's legal philosophy or history.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Narrator ('I') | Defense Attorney |
Author of the text, arguing a case before the Supreme Court (likely Alan Dershowitz based on context of the Tison case).
|
| Attorney General | Opposing Counsel |
Representing the State of Arizona.
|
| Ricky | Defendant/Brother |
One of the brothers accused in the crime.
|
| Raymond | Defendant/Brother |
One of the brothers accused in the crime.
|
| Randy | Brother/Accomplice |
Mentioned as being with the father during the killing.
|
| The Father | Perpetrator |
The individual who killed the Lyons family.
|
| Lyons' family | Victims |
The family killed in the car incident.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| State of Arizona |
The prosecution/respondent in the case.
|
|
| The Court |
Likely the US Supreme Court, given the reference to 'Justices' and legal precedents.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document production (via Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Crime timeline)
Unknown (Past)
Evaluation of the Tison v. Arizona case arguments.
Courtroom (likely Supreme Court)
Relationships (3)
I had made the best possible argument for my clients.
I had made the best possible argument for my clients.
Context of 'their father' and 'the brothers'.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Attorney General acknowledged that this 'would be different,' and that the brothers 'presence at the scene' is 'essential,' but he insisted that they were 'present'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262.jpg
Quote #1
"I can’t stand here today and tell you that [the brothers] knew…that at that time that the trigger would be pulled."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262.jpg
Quote #2
"Generally, presence is essential because it is evidentially relevant to the intent of the defendants."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262.jpg
Quote #3
"And I was right—at least about that!"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,548 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
I sat down, satisfied that I had made the best possible argument for my clients. Now it was the
State of Arizona’s time to argue. The Attorney General was hardly interrupted as he delivered his
argument. After a while, he too was asked a hypothetical, but one much closer to the facts of this
case:
State of Arizona’s time to argue. The Attorney General was hardly interrupted as he delivered his
argument. After a while, he too was asked a hypothetical, but one much closer to the facts of this
case:
…supposing right after they stopped the car with the family in it, the two boys instead of
following along as they did, had just gone on a hike, walked away half a mile, and then the
father…killed the family?
following along as they did, had just gone on a hike, walked away half a mile, and then the
father…killed the family?
The Attorney General acknowledged that this “would be different,” and that the brothers
“presence at the scene” is “essential,” but he insisted that they were “present,” even if not right
next to the car in which the shootings occurred. He also conceded that “I can’t stand here today
and tell you that [the brothers] knew…that at that time that the trigger would be pulled.”
“presence at the scene” is “essential,” but he insisted that they were “present,” even if not right
next to the car in which the shootings occurred. He also conceded that “I can’t stand here today
and tell you that [the brothers] knew…that at that time that the trigger would be pulled.”
I had just a few minutes for my rebuttal. In light of the Attorney General’s concessions, I decided
to point the Court to the record evidence that the brothers were not at the scene of the crime and
did not foresee that their father and Randy would kill the Lyons’ family:
to point the Court to the record evidence that the brothers were not at the scene of the crime and
did not foresee that their father and Randy would kill the Lyons’ family:
First, there is a specific finding on page 336 that it was not essential to the defendants'
continued evasion of arrest that these persons be murdered.
continued evasion of arrest that these persons be murdered.
Second, …there is not a single statement in this record by Ricky in which he does not
consistently say that the boys, all three of them, were sent away to get water.
consistently say that the boys, all three of them, were sent away to get water.
…
The state concedes that it is essential to this case that they be present at the scene of the
crime.
crime.
Why is presence essential?
Generally, presence is essential because it is evidentially relevant to the intent of the
defendants.
defendants.
I then pointed out that the evidence in this case led overwhelmingly to the conclusion that they
were not present and that they had deliberately been sent away to get water—been tricked into
believing they would be kept alive—precisely because their father knew that they did not want
anyone to die.
were not present and that they had deliberately been sent away to get water—been tricked into
believing they would be kept alive—precisely because their father knew that they did not want
anyone to die.
I was satisfied that I had done the best I could with the facts and the law. If the court were to
reaffirm the principles of Enmund, we would win. The justices seemed to acknowledge that if
there was no evidence that Ricky and Raymond had the “specific intent” to kill the Lyons’ family
“that’s the end of the case.” I was confident that when the justices reviewed the entire record of
the case, they would find that there was no such evidence.
reaffirm the principles of Enmund, we would win. The justices seemed to acknowledge that if
there was no evidence that Ricky and Raymond had the “specific intent” to kill the Lyons’ family
“that’s the end of the case.” I was confident that when the justices reviewed the entire record of
the case, they would find that there was no such evidence.
And I was right—at least about that!
175
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document