DOJ-OGR-00021017.jpg
696 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
696 KB
Summary
This legal document page details the court's reasoning for rejecting the Defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues that it correctly instructed the jury on the sole predicate offense under New York Penal Law, avoiding confusion that the Defendant's proposals regarding other jurisdictions' laws and specific witness testimonies (from Kate, Annie, and Jane) would have created. The document concludes that the Defendant's claim of potential jury error, specifically regarding conduct in New Mexico versus New York, is speculative and implausible.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kate | Witness |
Mentioned in relation to her testimony, for which the Defendant requested limiting instructions.
|
| Annie | Witness |
Mentioned in relation to her testimony, for which the Defendant requested limiting instructions.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in relation to her testimony about New Mexico and travel to New York.
|
| Joyner | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40, 47 (2d Cir. 2002)'.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in a footnote as the subject of a proposed jury instruction regarding her intent for minors to engage in se...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the body that rejected the Defendant's requests for jury instructions.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced in relation to New York Penal Law, Jane's travel, and sexual conduct.
|
|
|
Referenced in relation to Jane's testimony and the location of alleged conduct.
|
Relationships (2)
The document describes an adversarial legal relationship where the Defendant made requests for jury instructions that the Court rejected.
Jane is a witness whose testimony about travel and sexual conduct is being used in a case against the Defendant.
Key Quotes (3)
"illegal sexual activity as alleged in the indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021017.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's proposed instruction
(Quoted in a footnote from the Defendant's proposed jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00021017.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's proposed instruction
(Quoted in a footnote from the Defendant's proposed jury instruction regarding ages of consent in different jurisdictions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021017.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document