DOJ-OGR-00000618.jpg
616 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
616 KB
Summary
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from August 6, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg agrees the case meets complexity criteria for an extension. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues against a delay until September, advocating for a trial in May or June due to the 'public interest' in a swift resolution and the significant time passed since the charged conduct.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Weinberg | Defense Attorney |
Speaking on behalf of the defense regarding case complexity and extensions.
|
| Ms. Moe | Prosecutor (Government) |
Arguing for an earlier trial date (May or June) citing public interest.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Judge RMB (Richard M. Berman) presiding over the hearing.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| The Government |
Timeline (1 events)
2019-08-06
Court hearing regarding trial scheduling in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the court reporter location and case number.
|
Relationships (1)
Ms. Moe notes the government proposed May/June dates while the defense wants September.
Key Quotes (4)
"This case certainly meets all of the statutory criteria for complexity"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000618.jpg
Quote #1
"We think that there is a public interest in bringing this case to trial as swiftly as manageable."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000618.jpg
Quote #2
"Thirteen months is a considerable amount of time for a case of this nature to go to trial"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000618.jpg
Quote #3
"given the time period of the charged conduct and the length of time that's passed, we do think that there is"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000618.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,592 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 7 of 10 7
j7v2espC kjc
j7v2espC kjc
1 MR. WEINBERG: This case certainly meets all of the
2 statutory criteria for complexity and we would agree to that
3 extension, Judge.
4 MS. MOE: Your Honor, may I briefly be heard with
5 respect to the trial date?
6 THE COURT: Oh, sure. You know, it does sound like it
7 is kind of premature, but I'm happy to hear you. It is often
8 the defense that is ahead of the government, or not often, but
9 equally, but here it is the other way around. So if the
10 defense is not ready, it would be my practice to defer to the
11 defense, but I don't know that it is fixed in stone either way.
12 But, sure, I am happy to hear you.
13 MS. MOE: Your Honor, by way of background, we had
14 initially proposed to the defense a May trial date. We think
15 that there is a public interest in bringing this case to trial
16 as swiftly as manageable. We understand, given their concerns
17 in wanting to have more time, we proposed a date in June as a
18 compromise position. We understand if the defense has
19 indicated that they need additional time. We are sensitive to
20 those concerns. But we do have a concern about the notion of
21 setting a September trial date and that that trial would be
22 preliminary or as a placeholder. Thirteen months is a
23 considerable amount of time for a case of this nature to go to
24 trial; and, again, given the time period of the charged conduct
25 and the length of time that's passed, we do think that there is
2 statutory criteria for complexity and we would agree to that
3 extension, Judge.
4 MS. MOE: Your Honor, may I briefly be heard with
5 respect to the trial date?
6 THE COURT: Oh, sure. You know, it does sound like it
7 is kind of premature, but I'm happy to hear you. It is often
8 the defense that is ahead of the government, or not often, but
9 equally, but here it is the other way around. So if the
10 defense is not ready, it would be my practice to defer to the
11 defense, but I don't know that it is fixed in stone either way.
12 But, sure, I am happy to hear you.
13 MS. MOE: Your Honor, by way of background, we had
14 initially proposed to the defense a May trial date. We think
15 that there is a public interest in bringing this case to trial
16 as swiftly as manageable. We understand, given their concerns
17 in wanting to have more time, we proposed a date in June as a
18 compromise position. We understand if the defense has
19 indicated that they need additional time. We are sensitive to
20 those concerns. But we do have a concern about the notion of
21 setting a September trial date and that that trial would be
22 preliminary or as a placeholder. Thirteen months is a
23 considerable amount of time for a case of this nature to go to
24 trial; and, again, given the time period of the charged conduct
25 and the length of time that's passed, we do think that there is
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000618
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document