{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34 of 43",
    "document_number": "739",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 34 of 43 34 LBNAMAXTps\n\n1 But it seems to me these witnesses are in very\n2 different postures, and therefore different risk of prejudice.\n3 But I propose an instruction that I think gets to the point.\n4 And it's a different instruction precisely for this reason,\n5 that that sexual conduct can be relevant evidence of the\n6 enticement charge to violate New York law. So I do think some\n7 charge with respect to that witness, some limiting instruction\n8 with respect to that witness, is necessary. I won't make it\n9 confusing, and I won't allow the government to just insert its\n10 theory into the charge. But I'll take a look to see if there\n11 is any additional clarification. That would be helpful.\n12 MR. ROHRBACH: Just in response to Mr. Everdell's\n13 point, your Honor, the government is not prepared to concede\n14 today that the sexual activity that occurred in New Mexico was\n15 above the relevant age of consent. As we briefed in our\n16 letter, that's a complex question of New Mexico state law.\n17 THE COURT: So, I mean, if there's a factual question\n18 that the government intends to put on, as to whether that was\n19 illegal sexual activity under New Mexico law, then certainly\n20 I'm not going to -- again, that's not how you charged it.\n21 That's not how you charged it here. Right? You haven't\n22 charged pursuant to New Mexico law. But if what the government\n23 is saying is, I shouldn't give that charge because in fact\n24 you're going to show that it was illegal sexual activity -- I'm\n25 not going to misinform the jury that it wasn't illegal under\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011655",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 34 of 43 34 LBNAMAXTps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 But it seems to me these witnesses are in very\n2 different postures, and therefore different risk of prejudice.\n3 But I propose an instruction that I think gets to the point.\n4 And it's a different instruction precisely for this reason,\n5 that that sexual conduct can be relevant evidence of the\n6 enticement charge to violate New York law. So I do think some\n7 charge with respect to that witness, some limiting instruction\n8 with respect to that witness, is necessary. I won't make it\n9 confusing, and I won't allow the government to just insert its\n10 theory into the charge. But I'll take a look to see if there\n11 is any additional clarification. That would be helpful.\n12 MR. ROHRBACH: Just in response to Mr. Everdell's\n13 point, your Honor, the government is not prepared to concede\n14 today that the sexual activity that occurred in New Mexico was\n15 above the relevant age of consent. As we briefed in our\n16 letter, that's a complex question of New Mexico state law.\n17 THE COURT: So, I mean, if there's a factual question\n18 that the government intends to put on, as to whether that was\n19 illegal sexual activity under New Mexico law, then certainly\n20 I'm not going to -- again, that's not how you charged it.\n21 That's not how you charged it here. Right? You haven't\n22 charged pursuant to New Mexico law. But if what the government\n23 is saying is, I shouldn't give that charge because in fact\n24 you're going to show that it was illegal sexual activity -- I'm\n25 not going to misinform the jury that it wasn't illegal under",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011655",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "MR. ROHRBACH"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "739",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011655"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}