DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
535 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal proceeding
File Size:
535 KB
Summary
A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing an argument by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sentencing guidelines. Everdell argues that background commentary from the Sentencing Commission should be considered authoritative, specifically arguing that his client does not fit the definition of a 'dangerous sex offender' because they have not re-offended in over 18 years. Prosecutor Ms. Moe declines to respond verbally, resting on the government's written briefing.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Argues regarding sentencing guidelines and the definition of a dangerous offender.
|
| Ms. Moe | Prosecutor (Government) |
Declines to verbally respond to Everdell's point, resting on written briefing.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, managing the dialogue.
|
| Unnamed Defendant | Defendant |
Referenced by Everdell as 'someone who's never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the crime in this c...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Sentencing Commission |
Source of authoritative guidance mentioned by Everdell.
|
|
| Congress |
Mentioned in the context of creating the guidelines.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Transcription service listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by DOJ-OGR stamp).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Unknown
Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426).
Courtroom (likely SDNY)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY), based on the reporter's footer.
|
Relationships (1)
Everdell argues for defense; Moe represents the government.
Key Quotes (3)
"The title of the guideline is repeat and dangerous sex offenders."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
Quote #1
"It means someone who is continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the crime in this case"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
Quote #2
"We rest on our briefing on this issue"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,551 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page150 of 217
SA-404
SA-404
35
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 said, I don't need repetition of the arguments in the papers,
2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're
3 welcome to.
4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be
5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that
6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative
7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the
8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect.
9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was
10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how
11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a
12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what
13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and
14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains
15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is
16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's
17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the
18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending.
19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative
20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should
21 consider it as such. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond?
23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on
24 this issue, but thank you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?
2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're
3 welcome to.
4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be
5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that
6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative
7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the
8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect.
9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was
10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how
11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a
12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what
13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and
14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains
15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is
16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's
17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the
18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending.
19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative
20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should
21 consider it as such. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond?
23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on
24 this issue, but thank you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ...
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021580
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document