DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
576 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
576 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions regarding 'overt acts' involving witnesses named Jane, Annie, and Kate. The government agrees to remove an instruction related to Kate to avoid an improper conviction based solely on her testimony.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Argues regarding jury instructions and overt acts related to specific witnesses.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Prosecutor (Government) |
Agrees to delete the overt act relevant to Kate from the instructions.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the discussion.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned in the context of overt acts.
|
| Annie | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned regarding an overt act and age of consent issues (under 18 vs age of consent 16).
|
| Kate | Victim/Witness |
Defense argues her testimony should not be the sole basis for an overt act conviction; prosecution agrees to remove t...
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Implied Ghislaine Maxwell (based on Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN); the subject of potential conviction.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Indicated by footer DOJ-OGR
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceeding discussing jury instructions regarding overt acts and specific witnesses (Jane, Annie, Kate).
Courtroom (Southern District)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction (Southern District of New York) based on reporter name and case ID.
|
Relationships (2)
Everdell arguing to protect the defendant from improper conviction.
Rohrbach speaking on behalf of 'the government'.
Key Quotes (3)
"Because the overt act with respect to Annie is, she's saying she's under the age of 18, but the age of consent there is 16"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
Quote #1
"I don't think that should be in there at all because that invites them to base an overt act and convict the defendant based on Kate's testimony, which the Court has already instructed that the jury can't."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
Quote #2
"Insofar as we're no longer following the exact text of the indictment, the government would be fine with deleting the overt act relevant to Kate"Source
DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,470 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 52 of 95 2790
LCI1MAX1
LCI1MAX1
1 brackets or something.
2 So are you okay with "alleges" there, Mr. Everdell?
3 MR. EVERDELL: Well, let me see about that.
4 Are we talking just about the overt acts with respect
5 to Jane or are we talking about with Annie as well? Because
6 the overt act with respect to Annie is, she's saying she's
7 under the age of 18, but the age of consent there is 16, so --
8 and Kate -- there are a few issues here, so I'll just lay them
9 out.
10 The instruction with Annie is, you know, there's the
11 age of consent issue with Annie. But skipping to Kate, which
12 is No. 4, on line 18, I don't think that should be in there at
13 all because that invites them to base an overt act and convict
14 the defendant based on Kate's testimony, which the Court has
15 already instructed that the jury can't. So, I mean, if they
16 found that this element was satisfied solely with Kate's
17 testimony, that would be an improper conviction. So that
18 shouldn't be included.
19 MR. ROHRBACH: Insofar as we're no longer following
20 the exact text of the indictment, the government would be fine
21 with deleting the overt act relevant to Kate for the reason
22 Mr. Everdell stated.
23 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
24 MR. EVERDELL: All right. So then I think we could
25 probably say with respect to 1 and 2, which we're talking about
2 So are you okay with "alleges" there, Mr. Everdell?
3 MR. EVERDELL: Well, let me see about that.
4 Are we talking just about the overt acts with respect
5 to Jane or are we talking about with Annie as well? Because
6 the overt act with respect to Annie is, she's saying she's
7 under the age of 18, but the age of consent there is 16, so --
8 and Kate -- there are a few issues here, so I'll just lay them
9 out.
10 The instruction with Annie is, you know, there's the
11 age of consent issue with Annie. But skipping to Kate, which
12 is No. 4, on line 18, I don't think that should be in there at
13 all because that invites them to base an overt act and convict
14 the defendant based on Kate's testimony, which the Court has
15 already instructed that the jury can't. So, I mean, if they
16 found that this element was satisfied solely with Kate's
17 testimony, that would be an improper conviction. So that
18 shouldn't be included.
19 MR. ROHRBACH: Insofar as we're no longer following
20 the exact text of the indictment, the government would be fine
21 with deleting the overt act relevant to Kate for the reason
22 Mr. Everdell stated.
23 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
24 MR. EVERDELL: All right. So then I think we could
25 probably say with respect to 1 and 2, which we're talking about
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016978
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document