DOJ-OGR-00017336.jpg

be NO Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document775 Filed 08/10/22 Page3 of 16 3149 LCSCMAXT there can be no error in referring the jury to a correct legal instruction. And so no relief is appropriate here. Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO a oO = be N Ww = Hs Oo a OY a ~] a oO a Ke) 20 21 22 23 24 25 At bottom, your Honor, the jury asked a question and nothing more. There is no reason to speculate about what the jury might be concluding. The jury has been accurately instructed on the law and that's all that's required her Going beyond that to speculate about the jury's deliberations and compound speculation upon speculation to send back confusing legal instructions would compound the problem here. The simple course iS exac tly the course the Court took yesterday, which is to re fer the jury to a thorough and complete and accurate legal instruction. There can't be any dispute that the instructions that the Court has given are accurate, and that's all that's required her THE COURT: I suppose an additional point, just looking at the -—- I mean, the defense's new proposed instruction talks about Count Two, which wasn't asked about. Also, it has -- so it has three paragraphs. The first one is about Count Two, which wasn't asked about. There is a second paragraph. And then the third paragraph I think is just wrong, an intent that Jane engaged in sexual activity in any state other than New York cannot form the basis of these elements. That would suggest it may have no relevance. This is the same discussion we've had a couple of times, Mr. Everdell. Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 SOUTHERN D STRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR- 00017336