DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
593 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
593 KB
Summary
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (Mann Act). The Judge cites *United States v. An Soon Kim*, arguing that the word 'dominant' is not required in the statutory language for proving the purpose of transportation, while Everdell attempts to distinguish the case.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Discussing case law and jury instructions with the Judge. Likely Christian Everdell representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, citing case law found by clerks. Based on case number AJN, this is Judge Alison J. Nathan.
|
| Judge Sand | Jurist (cited) |
Referenced in the cited case law regarding jury instructions language.
|
| An Soon Kim | Defendant (cited case) |
Defendant in the case United States v. An Soon Kim, used as precedent.
|
| Miller | Defendant (cited case) |
Referenced in a parenthetical citation regarding previous jury charges.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting service.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in case law).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Southern District of New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on court reporter and case number prefix.
|
Relationships (1)
Direct dialogue in court transcript.
Key Quotes (3)
"Neither 'dominant' nor 'predominant' appear in the statutory language."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Sand recommends excluding the word 'dominant' from the charge so as to avoid confusion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
Quote #2
"we've never required such language to appear in a jury charge on 2421."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,486 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 33 of 95
2771
LCI1MAX1
2771
LCI1MAX1
1 only one of the dominant purposes.
2 THE COURT: Let me just note my remarkably crack law
3 clerks have found the following case: United States v. An Soon
4 Kim.
5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes.
6 THE COURT: You're aware of it.
7 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. But that case --
8 THE COURT: Just let me give the cite. 471 F. App'x
9 82 (2d Cir. 2012). Summary order, obviously, but it says a
10 couple of things. One -- ooh, I lost what my crack law clerk
11 sent there. It endorses the Sand language over "dominant."
12 "These instructions are legally sound. Neither 'dominant' nor
13 'predominant' appear in the statutory language. Although we
14 have previously approved a jury charge that included the phrase
15 "one of the dominant purposes," (see, e.g., Miller) we've never
16 required such language to appear in a jury charge on 2421.
17 Indeed, Judge Sand recommends excluding the word 'dominant'
18 from the charge so as to avoid confusion." And then at the end
19 of the opinion, "The charge given by the district court, which
20 closely tracks the charge outlined by Judge Sand, accurately
21 and thoroughly conveyed the second element of the crime.
22 Accordingly, we find no error, much less plain error, in the
23 jury charge."
24 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. So the way I read that case, your
25 Honor, is that there are two variants on how this charge has
2 THE COURT: Let me just note my remarkably crack law
3 clerks have found the following case: United States v. An Soon
4 Kim.
5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes.
6 THE COURT: You're aware of it.
7 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. But that case --
8 THE COURT: Just let me give the cite. 471 F. App'x
9 82 (2d Cir. 2012). Summary order, obviously, but it says a
10 couple of things. One -- ooh, I lost what my crack law clerk
11 sent there. It endorses the Sand language over "dominant."
12 "These instructions are legally sound. Neither 'dominant' nor
13 'predominant' appear in the statutory language. Although we
14 have previously approved a jury charge that included the phrase
15 "one of the dominant purposes," (see, e.g., Miller) we've never
16 required such language to appear in a jury charge on 2421.
17 Indeed, Judge Sand recommends excluding the word 'dominant'
18 from the charge so as to avoid confusion." And then at the end
19 of the opinion, "The charge given by the district court, which
20 closely tracks the charge outlined by Judge Sand, accurately
21 and thoroughly conveyed the second element of the crime.
22 Accordingly, we find no error, much less plain error, in the
23 jury charge."
24 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. So the way I read that case, your
25 Honor, is that there are two variants on how this charge has
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016959
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document