DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
471 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
471 KB
Summary
This is page 15 (filed page 47) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues against the concept of backdating in tolling agreements and asserts there is no proof the defendant knew specific rules or discussed transactions. He argues that a 'government partisan' on the jury constitutes a serious error rather than a harmless one, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Shechtman | Defense Attorney |
Speaker arguing regarding proof, harmless error, and prejudice.
|
| Ms. Davis | Government Attorney (Prosecutor) |
Addressed by the Court to respond to Mr. Shechtman.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding official managing the proceedings.
|
| Justice Marshall | Supreme Court Justice (Historical) |
Referenced by Shechtman regarding a dissent in the 'Strickland' case.
|
| Unnamed Male ('He/Him') | Subject of argument/Defendant |
Person regarding whom Shechtman argues there is 'no proof he knew this rule' and that a 'government partisan out to g...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District |
Referenced as the jurisdiction where tolling agreements and specific practices occur (likely SDNY).
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Transcription service provider listed in the footer.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution, referred to regarding the burden of proof.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Judicial district (likely New York).
|
Relationships (2)
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Shechtman.
Key Quotes (5)
"I'm sitting here with a tolling agreement from the Southern District in a case of mine which says as of January 14. Which is faxed on January 16."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
Quote #1
"There is no proof he knew this rule. There is no proof it was discussed with him."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
Quote #2
"The nature of the error here is that a government partisan out to get him in particular was on the jury."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
Quote #3
"The proof, far from overwhelming."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
Quote #4
"Ms. Davis, does the government want to be heard?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,590 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 616-2 Filed 08/24/22 Page 47 of 17
A-5917
A-5917
15
CAC3PARC
1 I'm sitting here with a tolling agreement from the
2 Southern District in a case of mine which says as of
3 January 14. Which is faxed on January 16. But everybody
4 wanted it to be effective two days before because that was the
5 agreement, as happens in the Southern District. It happens
6 everywhere. And it doesn't mean backdating. In this case it
7 means this is the price.
8 But all that is a long way of saying there is no proof
9 that he knew this rule. There is no proof it was discussed
10 with him. There is no proof he thought he knew these
11 transactions were wrong. And at the end of the day, when one's
12 argument is he must've known, that's a weak reed, particularly
13 when this prejudice notion is harmless error like. After all,
14 you have Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland that says it
15 should have been harmless error, it should have been under the
16 government's burden. When you do harmless error analysis, you
17 say two things: What is the nature of the error, and what's
18 the proof. The nature of the error here is that a government
19 partisan out to get him in particular was on the jury. That's
20 a pretty serious error. The proof, far from overwhelming.
21 As I say, I think if I can get you to the prejudice
22 prong, we ought to see you in April and not in January and I
23 hope that's the case.
24 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Shechtman.
25 Ms. Davis, does the government want to be heard?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010172
CAC3PARC
1 I'm sitting here with a tolling agreement from the
2 Southern District in a case of mine which says as of
3 January 14. Which is faxed on January 16. But everybody
4 wanted it to be effective two days before because that was the
5 agreement, as happens in the Southern District. It happens
6 everywhere. And it doesn't mean backdating. In this case it
7 means this is the price.
8 But all that is a long way of saying there is no proof
9 that he knew this rule. There is no proof it was discussed
10 with him. There is no proof he thought he knew these
11 transactions were wrong. And at the end of the day, when one's
12 argument is he must've known, that's a weak reed, particularly
13 when this prejudice notion is harmless error like. After all,
14 you have Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland that says it
15 should have been harmless error, it should have been under the
16 government's burden. When you do harmless error analysis, you
17 say two things: What is the nature of the error, and what's
18 the proof. The nature of the error here is that a government
19 partisan out to get him in particular was on the jury. That's
20 a pretty serious error. The proof, far from overwhelming.
21 As I say, I think if I can get you to the prejudice
22 prong, we ought to see you in April and not in January and I
23 hope that's the case.
24 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Shechtman.
25 Ms. Davis, does the government want to be heard?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010172
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document