DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg
612 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
612 KB
Summary
A page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that sentencing guidelines regarding 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' should not apply to his client, noting she has not been accused of a crime in over 18 years. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, declines to respond verbally, resting on previous written briefings.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Arguing regarding sentencing guidelines and the definition of 'dangerous sex offenders'.
|
| Ms. Moe | Prosecutor / Government Attorney |
Declines to respond verbally, resting on filed briefing.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing.
|
| Unspecified Defendant | Defendant |
Referred to as 'someone who's never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the crime in this case'. (Cont...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Sentencing Commission |
Source of guidance guidelines being discussed.
|
|
| Congress |
Mentioned in relation to the creation of guidelines.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting service listed in footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-07-22
Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell)
Southern District Court (likely SDNY)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY), implied by reporter name.
|
Relationships (1)
Everdell argues against 'the government's' papers; Moe represents the opposing side when asked to respond.
Key Quotes (3)
"It means someone who is continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg
Quote #1
"The government in its papers makes the argument that the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the guideline is."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg
Quote #2
"The title of the guideline is repeat and dangerous sex offenders."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,547 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 35 of 101 35
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 said, I don't need repetition of the arguments in the papers,
2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're
3 welcome to.
4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be
5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that
6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative
7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the
8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect.
9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was
10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how
11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a
12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what
13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and
14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains
15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is
16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's
17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the
18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending.
19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative
20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should
21 consider it as such. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond?
23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on
24 this issue, but thank you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?
2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're
3 welcome to.
4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be
5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that
6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative
7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the
8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect.
9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was
10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how
11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a
12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what
13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and
14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains
15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is
16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's
17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the
18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending.
19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative
20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should
21 consider it as such. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond?
23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on
24 this issue, but thank you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
.
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011554
.
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011554
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document