DOJ-OGR-00020863.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, Page37 of 221 A-237 3154 LCSCMAXT activity that occurred in New Mxico, that wouldn't be a sufficient basis to convict on Count Four or Count Two because it requires an intent to violate New York law, and you can't violate this section of New York lawin New Mxico. So if that's all they're considered on a basis to convict on Count Four and Count Two, then that would be insufficient and improper, and that's why I think a supplemental instruction that clarifies that point is warranted in this case, but I understand the Court has rejected that. And that's all. THE COURT: I think the instruction is correct that I referred themto. The reading of the note that you've suggested, I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings, and what you've proposed, as you just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that's why precisely we sent them back to the charge. Anything else? MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. THE COURT: As I said, we'll see where vwe are at the end of the day, but in light of the variant, my concern about interruption of trial, given the increasing daily risk of exposure to either a juror or trial participant requiring quarantine, it is time to think to have the jurors make plans to continue deliberating until a verdict is reached. I wll wait until we hear fromthe jury, otherwse SOUTHERN DI STRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020863