DOJ-OGR-00000400.jpg
588 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
588 KB
Summary
This is page 14 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, in the case of USA v. Epstein. The judge asks the prosecution (Mr. Rossmiller) if other defendants are anticipated; Rossmiller replies that no superseding indictments are imminent but are possible. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten then argues against current obstruction allegations by citing historical negotiations from 2007-2008, where federal and defense lawyers settled on a state statute plea deal rather than federal charges.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Rossmiller | Government Attorney/Prosecutor |
Responding to the judge regarding future submissions and potential additional defendants.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, asking about conspiracy charges and potential future defendants.
|
| Mr. Weingarten | Defense Attorney |
Addressing the court regarding obstruction allegations and historical plea negotiations.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of the hearing; referenced regarding past plea deals in 2007/2008 and current obstruction allegations.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| The Feds |
Referenced as negotiating with Epstein's attorneys in the early 2000s.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by document stamp DOJ-OGR-00000400
|
Timeline (2 events)
2019-07-16
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on case number format and reporter info.
|
Relationships (2)
Weingarten advocates for Epstein's defense regarding obstruction allegations.
Rossmiller answers the judge's questions regarding the government's investigation.
Key Quotes (5)
"Do you anticipate that there may be other defendants in this proceeding?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000400.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, we don't expect any imminent superseding indictments in this case. It certainly is possible down the road."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000400.jpg
Quote #2
"These obstruction allegations we find very nettlesome and bothering."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000400.jpg
Quote #3
"My understanding is that the Feds and Mr. Epstein's attorneys back in the early 2000s, or 2007 and 8... were looking desperately for an appropriate statute."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000400.jpg
Quote #4
"They finally settled on a state statute that Mr. Epstein pled to."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000400.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,501 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 14 of 18 14
1 MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, I think we addressed that
2 in our initial submission. To the extent defense counsel has a
3 response to it, we will evaluate that response and see whether
4 additional submission from the government is required or
5 appropriate.
6 THE COURT: I think that's it for me in terms of
7 questions that I might have had.
8 There is, of course, a conspiracy charge here, one of
9 the two counts. It may be early in your investigation to know.
10 Do you anticipate that there may be other defendants in this
11 proceeding?
12 MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, we don't expect any
13 imminent superseding indictments in this case. It certainly is
14 possible down the road.
15 MR. WEINGARTEN: May I make one point, your Honor?
16 These obstruction allegations we find very nettlesome and
17 bothering. My understanding is that the Feds and Mr. Epstein's
18 attorneys back in the early 2000s, or 2007 and 8, when they
19 were negotiating were looking desperately for an appropriate
20 statute. They finally settled on a state statute that Mr.
21 Epstein pled to. We all know how unusual that is. There was
22 some consideration of a federal statute, including obstruction.
23 So lawyers in good faith were having discussions back
24 and forth whether or not they could squeeze Mr. Epstein's
25 conduct into a particular statute, and they concluded they
1 MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, I think we addressed that
2 in our initial submission. To the extent defense counsel has a
3 response to it, we will evaluate that response and see whether
4 additional submission from the government is required or
5 appropriate.
6 THE COURT: I think that's it for me in terms of
7 questions that I might have had.
8 There is, of course, a conspiracy charge here, one of
9 the two counts. It may be early in your investigation to know.
10 Do you anticipate that there may be other defendants in this
11 proceeding?
12 MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, we don't expect any
13 imminent superseding indictments in this case. It certainly is
14 possible down the road.
15 MR. WEINGARTEN: May I make one point, your Honor?
16 These obstruction allegations we find very nettlesome and
17 bothering. My understanding is that the Feds and Mr. Epstein's
18 attorneys back in the early 2000s, or 2007 and 8, when they
19 were negotiating were looking desperately for an appropriate
20 statute. They finally settled on a state statute that Mr.
21 Epstein pled to. We all know how unusual that is. There was
22 some consideration of a federal statute, including obstruction.
23 So lawyers in good faith were having discussions back
24 and forth whether or not they could squeeze Mr. Epstein's
25 conduct into a particular statute, and they concluded they
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000400
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document