Event Details
June 29, 2023
Description
A legal argument is presented by counsel (Mr. Everdell) to a judge regarding the appropriate sentencing guidelines (2003 vs. 2004) and whether the jury should have made the determination based on the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Participants (2)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unnamed Judge | person | 11 | View Entity |
| Mr. Everdell | person | 1327 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a discussion during a sentencing hearing. Counsel Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should have determined whether the 2003 or 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, as this is a factual determination tied to when the offense ended and is protected by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judge is hearing this argument after noting the probation department's recommendation for a 240-month sentence, a downward variance from the calculated range.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
Cross-examination of witness Visoski by Mr. Everdell regarding flights and the identity of a passenger named Jane.
2022-08-10
A discussion took place regarding the order of witnesses for the day's trial proceedings.
2022-08-10 • courthouse
Jury Deliberation/Instruction
Date unknown • Courtroom
A discussion took place regarding jury instructions, followed by the court calling a recess.
2022-08-10 • Courtroom in the Southern District
Author formally charged with criminally defaming a judge.
Date unknown • Unknown
The Court called a 10-minute break in the proceedings.
2022-08-10 • Courtroom in the Southern District
Attorneys and the judge discuss the procedure for presenting evidence to the jury.
2022-08-10 • Courtroom
Discussion about a witness coming from the U.K. who cannot be present until Monday.
Date unknown
A discussion in court between the judge and Mr. Everdell regarding the admissibility of testimony and evidence related to property records.
2022-08-10 • Courtroom
Discussion between the Court and counsel regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning the interpretation of New Mexico law on illegal sexual activity and how evidence should be presented to the jury. The Court indicates it will consider the points raised and re-propose instructions.
2021-12-10 • Courtroom (implied)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event