DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
765 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
765 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a response from the prosecution, arguing that the court's jury instructions were proper. It states the court correctly instructed the jury to consider only New York law as the predicate offense for the Mann Act counts and was right to reject the defendant's requests for additional limiting instructions regarding testimony about events in New Mexico and varying ages of consent. The filing asserts that the defendant's claim of potential jury confusion is speculative and implausible.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kate | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of her testimony, for which the Defendant requested limiting instructions.
|
| Annie | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of her testimony, for which the Defendant requested limiting instructions.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of her testimony about New Mexico, for which the Defendant requested a limiting instruction.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in a footnote describing the Defendant's proposed jury instruction regarding her intent.
|
| Joyner | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40, 47 (2d Cir. 2002)'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced as the body that rejected the Defendant's requests for jury instructions.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Joyner'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the jurisdiction for the predicate state offense (New York Penal Law Section 130.55) and the location of...
|
|
|
Mentioned as the location of events described in Jane's testimony.
|
Relationships (3)
The document details the Court rejecting requests made by the Defendant regarding jury instructions.
The Defendant sought a limiting instruction regarding Jane's testimony, indicating her testimony was likely damaging to the Defendant's case.
Defendant
→
Legal (Adversarial)
→
government
The footnote mentions the government's burden of proof in the case against the Defendant (Ms. Maxwell).
Key Quotes (3)
"illegal sexual activity as alleged in the indictment."Source
— Court/Indictment
(A phrase the jury was instructed on, which was defined as a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55.)
DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]o prove Counts One and Three, the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell acted with the intent that the minors would engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense."Source
— Defendant (in proposed instruction)
(From a footnote describing the Defendant's proposed jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
Quote #2
"[i]f the individual was at or above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction when the sexual activity occurred, then for the purposes of Counts One and Three, the sexual activity was not illegal."Source
— Defendant (in proposed instruction)
(From a footnote describing the Defendant's proposed jury instruction on ages of consent in different jurisdictions.)
DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document