DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
524 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal filing (appeal appendix)
File Size:
524 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the proceedings, making a ruling on how to instruct the jury.
|
| Ms. Moe | Prosecutor/Attorney |
Arguing that the jury charge regarding New York law is clear and there is no risk of confusion.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Expressing concern about potential jury confusion regarding the laws.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ (Department of Justice) |
Indicated by DOJ-OGR stamp
|
Timeline (1 events)
Unknown (Trial Phase)
Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four.
Courtroom (Southern District of New York implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned regarding Count Four laws.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned as NOT being relevant to Count Four.
|
Relationships (2)
Arguing opposite sides of the jury instruction issue.
Key Quotes (4)
"Count Four requires a violation of New York law, not New Mexico law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
Quote #1
"The only illegal sexual activity identified in the entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
Quote #2
"THE COURT: This conversation is stopping."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
Quote #3
"My decision is to refer them back to this charge, because it is a proper instruction on the second element to Count Four."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,446 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page21 of 221
A-221
A-221
3140
LCRVMAXT
LCRVMAXT
1 instruction. Clearly they are making an error concerning which
2 state begins with "New." And I suggest that if the Court
3 wishes to refer them to the charge, the Court also clears up
4 the fact that Count Four requires a violation of New York law,
5 not New Mexico law.
6 THE COURT: That's certainly why we should refer them
7 to the whole charge. That's what lines 7 through 10 make
8 clear.
9 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
10 The only illegal sexual activity identified in the
11 entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There
12 cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular
13 charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as
14 well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New
15 Mexico; so there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly
16 that reason.
17 MR. EVERDELL: I just don't understand the confidence
18 about how there can be no possible confusion --
19 THE COURT: This conversation is stopping.
20 My decision is to refer them back to this charge,
21 because it is a proper instruction on the second element to
22 Count Four. I do not know what this question means. It's too
23 difficult to parse factually and legally what they're asking.
24 So the only option in those circumstances is to direct them
25 back to the count.
2 state begins with "New." And I suggest that if the Court
3 wishes to refer them to the charge, the Court also clears up
4 the fact that Count Four requires a violation of New York law,
5 not New Mexico law.
6 THE COURT: That's certainly why we should refer them
7 to the whole charge. That's what lines 7 through 10 make
8 clear.
9 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
10 The only illegal sexual activity identified in the
11 entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There
12 cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular
13 charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as
14 well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New
15 Mexico; so there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly
16 that reason.
17 MR. EVERDELL: I just don't understand the confidence
18 about how there can be no possible confusion --
19 THE COURT: This conversation is stopping.
20 My decision is to refer them back to this charge,
21 because it is a proper instruction on the second element to
22 Count Four. I do not know what this question means. It's too
23 difficult to parse factually and legally what they're asking.
24 So the only option in those circumstances is to direct them
25 back to the count.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00020847
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document