DOJ-OGR-00020858.jpg

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-1426, Document 58_02/28/2023, 3475901, Page32 of 221 A-232 3149 LCSCMAXT there can be no error in referring the jury to a correct legal instruction. And so no relief is appropriate here. At bottom your Honor, the jury asked a question and nothing more. There is no reason to speculate about what the jury mght be concluding. The jury has been accurately instructed on the lawand that's all that's required here. 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 exactly the course the Court took yesterday, which is to refer the jury to a thorough and conplete 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 here. 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 formthe basis of these elements. That would suggest it my have no relevance. This is the same discussion we've had a couple of times, M. Everdell. Sexual activity wth respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 SOUTHERN DI STRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR- 00020858