DOJ-OGR-00000557.jpg
585 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript (detention hearing)
File Size:
585 KB
Summary
This document is page 47 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein (1:19-cr-00490). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg is arguing against the government's claim that payments of $250,000 and $100,000 made by the defendant constituted witness tampering or obstruction of justice. Weinberg contends these were acts of generosity to employees or friends and argues that, under the Aguilar Supreme Court precedent, these actions do not rise to federal obstruction because there was no pending judicial proceeding at the time.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Weinberg | Defense Attorney |
Speaking to the court, defending the actions of the defendant regarding payments.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Asking clarifying questions about specific monetary amounts.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the hearing (implied to be Jeffrey Epstein based on case number), accused of attempting to influence cocon...
|
| Aguilar | Subject of Legal Precedent |
Referenced regarding a Supreme Court decision on federal obstruction.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| Miami Herald |
Mentioned as running an article that coincided with the payments.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Referenced for the Aguilar decision.
|
|
| The Government |
Arguments presented by the prosecution regarding witness tampering.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2019-07-24
Court Hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB)
Southern District of New York (implied by reporter name)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location associated with the judge in the Aguilar case.
|
Relationships (2)
Government claim that defendant attempted to influence them.
Weinberg is arguing on behalf of the defendant.
Key Quotes (2)
"Given the timing, it suggests... the defendant was attempting to further influence coconspirators who might provide information."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000557.jpg
Quote #1
"the payment of an employee or the payment of a friend is simply not witness tampering because the Miami Herald ran an article."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000557.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,501 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 47 of 74 47
1 constitute the predicate of detention and the predicate --
2 THE COURT: The $250,000 and the $100,000?
3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.
4 The government says -- and I think they're being
5 candid in their language in the last sentence on page 11 --
6 that "Given the timing, it suggests" -- and I underline that
7 word -- "the defendant was attempting to further influence
8 coconspirators who might provide information."
9 So the government -- and I think they've been candid
10 today -- has not confirmed the witness testimony through
11 corroboration, through any other corroborative mechanism
12 whether this was an act of generosity or an act that somehow
13 was connected to what the government suggests might have been a
14 motive.
15 But this occurring when there was no pending judicial
16 proceeding and no knowledge of a pending investigation doesn't
17 rise to the level of a federal obstruction which requires the
18 pendency or the foreseeability of a federal investigation under
19 the Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, A-g-u-i-l-a-r, a judge
20 in California.
21 We just contend that even when you look backwards to
22 whether this constitutes an obstruction, the payment of an
23 employee or the payment of a friend is simply not witness
24 tampering because the Miami Herald ran an article.
25 It simply doesn't rise to the level of a past crime
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000557
1 constitute the predicate of detention and the predicate --
2 THE COURT: The $250,000 and the $100,000?
3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.
4 The government says -- and I think they're being
5 candid in their language in the last sentence on page 11 --
6 that "Given the timing, it suggests" -- and I underline that
7 word -- "the defendant was attempting to further influence
8 coconspirators who might provide information."
9 So the government -- and I think they've been candid
10 today -- has not confirmed the witness testimony through
11 corroboration, through any other corroborative mechanism
12 whether this was an act of generosity or an act that somehow
13 was connected to what the government suggests might have been a
14 motive.
15 But this occurring when there was no pending judicial
16 proceeding and no knowledge of a pending investigation doesn't
17 rise to the level of a federal obstruction which requires the
18 pendency or the foreseeability of a federal investigation under
19 the Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, A-g-u-i-l-a-r, a judge
20 in California.
21 We just contend that even when you look backwards to
22 whether this constitutes an obstruction, the payment of an
23 employee or the payment of a friend is simply not witness
24 tampering because the Miami Herald ran an article.
25 It simply doesn't rise to the level of a past crime
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000557
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document