DOJ-OGR-00017006.jpg
587 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
587 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding jury instructions concerning 'investigative techniques.' Everdell argues the charge should be removed as the defense did not elicit evidence on the topic, while Rohrbach argues it is a correct statement of law relevant to the case.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing to eliminate a specific jury charge regarding investigative techniques.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Prosecutor |
Arguing in favor of including the jury instruction regarding investigative techniques.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the argument; likely Judge Alison J. Nathan based on case number AJN.
|
| Special Agent Young | Witness/Law Enforcement |
Mentioned by Everdell and the Court regarding questions asked the previous day.
|
| Sand | Legal Authority (Author) |
Referenced in the context of 'Sand charge' and 'Sand has filled three volumes,' referring to Judge Leonard Sand's Mod...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Indicated by the footer 'DOJ-OGR'
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceedings in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically a discussion on jury instructions.
Courtroom (Southern District of New York)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by case number and reporter name.
|
Relationships (2)
Everdell addressing 'The Court' or 'your Honor' making a legal request.
Arguing opposite sides of the jury instruction issue.
Key Quotes (3)
"The request is to eliminate the charge on this point because we couldn't -- we weren't supposed to, and nor did -- I think we tried to abide by the Court's ruling to not talk about particular investigative techniques"Source
DOJ-OGR-00017006.jpg
Quote #1
"Sand has filled three volumes of correct statements on law, your Honor. That doesn't mean that they get into a jury charge."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017006.jpg
Quote #2
"particular investigative techniques are not required."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017006.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,489 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 80 of 95
2818
LCIAMAX2ps
2818
LCIAMAX2ps
1 ruling. But the ruling is what the ruling is. What's the request?
2
3 MR. EVERDELL: The request is to eliminate the charge
4 on this point because we couldn't -- we weren't supposed to,
5 and nor did -- I think we tried to abide by the Court's ruling
6 to not talk about particular investigative techniques or elicit
7 evidence on that point. And so if we're not going to be
8 permitted to elicit or argue that point to the jury, then it
9 doesn't seem like they need to be instructed on that point.
10 MR. ROHRBACH: This is a legally correct instruction.
11 As the Court has ruled many times now in this case, particular
12 investigative techniques are not required. The defense made
13 that point, as they could, on cross through the case, and I
14 assume it will be, as they can in the defense's summation. And
15 this is a correct statement of the law on which the jury should
16 be instructed.
17 MR. EVERDELL: Sand has filled three volumes of
18 correct statements on law, your Honor. That doesn't mean that
19 they get into a jury charge.
20 THE COURT: I think I've always included this charge,
21 so it's not just a rarely invoked Sand charge. I mean, as you
22 talked about yesterday, there were questions you were going
23 to -- ask.
24 MR. EVERDELL: Special Agent Young.
25 THE COURT: -- Young, thank you -- that either -- some
2
3 MR. EVERDELL: The request is to eliminate the charge
4 on this point because we couldn't -- we weren't supposed to,
5 and nor did -- I think we tried to abide by the Court's ruling
6 to not talk about particular investigative techniques or elicit
7 evidence on that point. And so if we're not going to be
8 permitted to elicit or argue that point to the jury, then it
9 doesn't seem like they need to be instructed on that point.
10 MR. ROHRBACH: This is a legally correct instruction.
11 As the Court has ruled many times now in this case, particular
12 investigative techniques are not required. The defense made
13 that point, as they could, on cross through the case, and I
14 assume it will be, as they can in the defense's summation. And
15 this is a correct statement of the law on which the jury should
16 be instructed.
17 MR. EVERDELL: Sand has filled three volumes of
18 correct statements on law, your Honor. That doesn't mean that
19 they get into a jury charge.
20 THE COURT: I think I've always included this charge,
21 so it's not just a rarely invoked Sand charge. I mean, as you
22 talked about yesterday, there were questions you were going
23 to -- ask.
24 MR. EVERDELL: Special Agent Young.
25 THE COURT: -- Young, thank you -- that either -- some
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017006
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017006
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document