DOJ-OGR-00016934.jpg
598 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
598 KB
Summary
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues about jury instructions, specifically that 'Count One' should refer solely to victim 'Jane' between 1994 and 2004. He further argues that conduct involving victims 'Kate' (due to age of consent in NY) and 'Annie' (conduct in New Mexico) did not constitute violations of the specific laws charged.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing regarding jury instructions and the applicability of New York law to specific alleged victims.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, correcting/clarifying legal nuances regarding jury instructions.
|
| Jane | Alleged Victim |
Subject of the defense's proposed change to Count One reading.
|
| Kate | Alleged Victim |
Defense argues there was no violation of NY law regarding her because she was above the age of consent.
|
| Annie | Alleged Victim |
Discussed in relation to conduct in New Mexico which was deemed 'not illegal'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in footer.
|
|
| The Government |
The prosecution, referenced regarding their 'theory of the conspiracy'.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR-00016934).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
Court filing date of the transcript regarding jury instructions.
Courtroom (Southern District of New York implied)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction for the laws (Section 130.55) being discussed.
|
|
|
Location where conduct involving 'Annie' occurred.
|
Relationships (3)
Attorney arguing before the Judge.
Defense argues Count One relates solely to Jane.
Defense argues no violation regarding Kate due to age of consent.
Key Quotes (3)
"Count One relates solely to Jane and the time period 1994 to 2004."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016934.jpg
Quote #1
"With respect to Kate, there was no violation of New York law... because she was above the age of consent."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016934.jpg
Quote #2
"whatever conduct they may find that she talked about in New Mexico, was not illegal"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016934.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,524 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 95 2746
LCI1MAX1
LCI1MAX1
1 now reads, "Count One relates to multiple alleged victims in
2 the time period 1994 into 2004." We believe it should read,
3 "Count One relates solely to Jane and the time period 1994 to
4 2004." And I can explain, if you like, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Let me just get my eyes on it.
6 Okay.
7 MR. EVERDELL: So, your Honor, this is an issue I
8 think we've gone back and forth on quite a bit in the motions
9 in limine. But with respect to the government's theory of the
10 conspiracy and of the substantive counts, enticement and
11 transportation, so Counts One through Four, is that the
12 underlying object was a violation of New York law, right,
13 Section 130.55. So there has to be -- the object of this
14 conspiracy is a violation of New York law. With respect to
15 Kate, there was no violation of New York law. Your Honor
16 already instructed the jury that they can't consider that
17 evidence for purposes of conviction because she was above the
18 age of consent. There was no violation of New York law. Same
19 thing with --
20 THE COURT: Well, just to be slightly more precise,
21 they can't convict on that count based solely on the evidence
22 of the conduct involving her.
23 MR. EVERDELL: Correct. And with respect to Annie,
24 the Court also instructed that this is -- whatever conduct they
25 may find that she talked about in New Mexico, was not illegal
2 the time period 1994 into 2004." We believe it should read,
3 "Count One relates solely to Jane and the time period 1994 to
4 2004." And I can explain, if you like, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Let me just get my eyes on it.
6 Okay.
7 MR. EVERDELL: So, your Honor, this is an issue I
8 think we've gone back and forth on quite a bit in the motions
9 in limine. But with respect to the government's theory of the
10 conspiracy and of the substantive counts, enticement and
11 transportation, so Counts One through Four, is that the
12 underlying object was a violation of New York law, right,
13 Section 130.55. So there has to be -- the object of this
14 conspiracy is a violation of New York law. With respect to
15 Kate, there was no violation of New York law. Your Honor
16 already instructed the jury that they can't consider that
17 evidence for purposes of conviction because she was above the
18 age of consent. There was no violation of New York law. Same
19 thing with --
20 THE COURT: Well, just to be slightly more precise,
21 they can't convict on that count based solely on the evidence
22 of the conduct involving her.
23 MR. EVERDELL: Correct. And with respect to Annie,
24 the Court also instructed that this is -- whatever conduct they
25 may find that she talked about in New Mexico, was not illegal
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016934
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016934
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document