DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg
538 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
538 KB
Summary
This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Speaking to the court ('Your Honor') about proposed jury instructions for Count Four.
|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Attorney |
Speaking to the court ('Judge') to voice a concern about the jury's confusion regarding New Mexico and a New York-bas...
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the discussion, addressed as 'Your Honor' and 'Judge', and responding to the attorneys.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2023-02-28
A discussion between the Court and attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim) regarding how to respond to a jury question. The jury is confused about whether flights to New Mexico are relevant to 'Count Four', which pertains to a violation of New York law.
Courtroom
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the jurisdiction whose law (New York Penal Law) is being violated under Count Four, and where the releva...
|
|
|
Mentioned as the destination of flights that the jury is asking about in relation to Count Four.
|
Relationships (3)
Ms. Moe addresses the court as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal argument regarding jury instructions.
Ms. Sternheim addresses the court as 'Judge' and requests permission to speak on a legal matter.
Both are attorneys participating in the same court proceeding, presenting arguments to the judge on the same issue, seemingly from opposing perspectives on how to handle a jury question.
Key Quotes (2)
"Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the instruction, which says just that."Source
— MS. MOE
(Arguing that the existing jury instructions are sufficient to clarify the jury's confusion about the relevance of New York law.)
DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg
Quote #1
"I think the fact that the jury has mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New York is not just cleared up by referring them to the"Source
— MS. STERNHEIM
(Expressing concern that simply referring the jury back to the instructions is insufficient to resolve their confusion about the geographic elements of the charge.)
DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,488 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page20 of 221
A-220
A-220
3139
LCRVMAXT
1 which is the substantive transportation count, which, as we
2 know, has to deal with the violation of New York law. And they
3 are talking about flights to New Mexico; and can she be found
4 guilty on the second element of Count Four regarding these
5 flights to New Mexico.
6 So I think we may have to respond to the jury on that
7 score as well, which is the fact that they have to be
8 considering New York events for Count Four, rather than -- or
9 violations of New York law, which wouldn't occur in New Mexico
10 for there to be a conviction on Count Four.
11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we
12 proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the
13 instruction, which says just that. The second paragraph of
14 that same instruction reminds the jury, as the instruction does
15 throughout, that we're talking about New York Penal Law,
16 Section 130.55. And so I think our proposal remains the same
17 that they be referred to the entirety of the instruction, which
18 includes that language, among other aspects of this particular
19 element.
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, may I be heard for a moment?
22 THE COURT: Sure.
23 MS. STERNHEIM: I think the fact that the jury has
24 mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New
25 York is not just cleared up by referring them to the
LCRVMAXT
1 which is the substantive transportation count, which, as we
2 know, has to deal with the violation of New York law. And they
3 are talking about flights to New Mexico; and can she be found
4 guilty on the second element of Count Four regarding these
5 flights to New Mexico.
6 So I think we may have to respond to the jury on that
7 score as well, which is the fact that they have to be
8 considering New York events for Count Four, rather than -- or
9 violations of New York law, which wouldn't occur in New Mexico
10 for there to be a conviction on Count Four.
11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we
12 proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the
13 instruction, which says just that. The second paragraph of
14 that same instruction reminds the jury, as the instruction does
15 throughout, that we're talking about New York Penal Law,
16 Section 130.55. And so I think our proposal remains the same
17 that they be referred to the entirety of the instruction, which
18 includes that language, among other aspects of this particular
19 element.
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, may I be heard for a moment?
22 THE COURT: Sure.
23 MS. STERNHEIM: I think the fact that the jury has
24 mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New
25 York is not just cleared up by referring them to the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00020846
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document