DOJ-OGR-00009502.jpg
459 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
459 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing an argument by an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, before a judge. Shechtman refutes the government's claim that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a "partisan" juror, arguing instead that the resulting split verdict was due to this juror's inability to persuade others to convict, not because her presence was advantageous to the defense.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Shechtman | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing on behalf of his client.
|
| Judge | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing and being addressed by Mr. Shechtman.
|
| Mr. Parse | Client/Defendant |
Mentioned as the client of Mr. Shechtman who was the subject of a jury trial with a split verdict.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-02-24
A court hearing where Mr. Shechtman presents arguments to a judge regarding a prior jury trial and split verdict concerning his client, Mr. Parse.
A court in the Southern District
Relationships (2)
Mr. Shechtman refers to Mr. Parse and his "clients," indicating an attorney-client relationship.
Mr. Shechtman is presenting a legal argument directly to the Judge in a formal court setting.
Key Quotes (3)
"I take that to mean that he got acquitted here because she was on the jury."Source
— Mr. Shechtman
(Summarizing and refuting the government's argument about why his client was acquitted on some counts.)
DOJ-OGR-00009502.jpg
Quote #1
"There was a partisan in the jury room, a woman who couldn't follow instructions and the like."Source
— Mr. Shechtman
(Describing a juror from the trial of his client, Mr. Parse.)
DOJ-OGR-00009502.jpg
Quote #2
"And the related point this was a split verdict, it is a split verdict because she couldn't carry the ball as far as she wanted to, but not because Mr. Parse benefited by her presence."Source
— Mr. Shechtman
(Arguing the reason for the split verdict was the juror's ineffectiveness, not a benefit to his client.)
DOJ-OGR-00009502.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,559 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 83 of 117
A-5926
A-5926
CAC3PARC
24
24
1 Mr. Shechtman, do you want to be heard further?
2 MR. SHECHTMAN: I will and I will try to be brief,
3 Judge. I think really four points. The government has
4 repeated at the argument here what it said in its brief. Which
5 was that Mr. Parse benefited from the strategic choice that his
6 clients made and I'll hold the strategic choice point for a
7 second. But I take that to mean that he got acquitted here
8 because she was on the jury. And that, my father used to say
9 arguments were nonsense on stilts, and that is nonsense on
10 stilts. I mean, your Honor knows exactly what happened here.
11 There was a partisan in the jury room, a woman who couldn't
12 follow instructions and the like. Your opinion couldn't be
13 stronger on the point. And she was fighting the good fight to
14 convict him on 100 percent.
15 So to say we got the benefit of having her on there
16 because we were acquitted isn't worthy, respectfully, of the
17 government.
18 And the related point this was a split verdict, it is
19 a split verdict because she couldn't carry the ball as far as
20 she wanted to, but not because Mr. Parse benefited by her
21 presence.
22 The second thing I'd say is this. I take it there are
23 two competing versions of what happened here, and at the end of
24 the day, your Honor is going to have to decide. One is that
25 what happened in that court, your Honor, in the plaza, is that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
2 MR. SHECHTMAN: I will and I will try to be brief,
3 Judge. I think really four points. The government has
4 repeated at the argument here what it said in its brief. Which
5 was that Mr. Parse benefited from the strategic choice that his
6 clients made and I'll hold the strategic choice point for a
7 second. But I take that to mean that he got acquitted here
8 because she was on the jury. And that, my father used to say
9 arguments were nonsense on stilts, and that is nonsense on
10 stilts. I mean, your Honor knows exactly what happened here.
11 There was a partisan in the jury room, a woman who couldn't
12 follow instructions and the like. Your opinion couldn't be
13 stronger on the point. And she was fighting the good fight to
14 convict him on 100 percent.
15 So to say we got the benefit of having her on there
16 because we were acquitted isn't worthy, respectfully, of the
17 government.
18 And the related point this was a split verdict, it is
19 a split verdict because she couldn't carry the ball as far as
20 she wanted to, but not because Mr. Parse benefited by her
21 presence.
22 The second thing I'd say is this. I take it there are
23 two competing versions of what happened here, and at the end of
24 the day, your Honor is going to have to decide. One is that
25 what happened in that court, your Honor, in the plaza, is that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009502
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document