DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg

629 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 629 KB
Summary

This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, presents an argument regarding the application of Section 3283 to charges against Maxwell for transporting a minor for illegal sexual activity. Maxwell contends the statute doesn't apply because a completed sex act isn't an element of the charge, but the document counters that trial evidence, including testimony from a victim named Jane, established that her offenses did involve completed sex acts. A footnote adds that Judge Nathan found another charge, Count Six, to be timely based on the retroactive application of a different statute, § 3299.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Landgraf Party in a cited legal case
Mentioned as part of a legal test or precedent ('step two of Landgraf').
Weingarten Party in a cited legal case
Cited in 'See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55' for a legal principle.
Maxwell Defendant/Appellant
The subject of the legal argument, arguing that Section 3283 does not apply to counts against her.
Jane Witness/Victim
Mentioned as having testified against Maxwell.
Judge Nathan Judge
Mentioned in a footnote as having made a finding regarding the timeliness of Count Six.

Organizations (1)

Name Type Context
Government government agency
Mentioned in a footnote as arguing a legal point regarding Count Six.

Timeline (1 events)

A trial where evidence was established that Maxwell's commission of Counts Three and Four involved completed sex acts abusing minor victims, and where Jane testified.

Relationships (2)

Maxwell Adversarial (Accused/Victim) Jane
The document states that 'Jane testified that she was' (implying she was a victim of Maxwell's actions) and that Maxwell's crimes involved 'abusing one or more minor victims'.
Maxwell Adversarial (Defendant/Prosecution) Government
The document outlines Maxwell's legal arguments against the charges and mentions the Government's counter-arguments in a footnote.

Key Quotes (3)

"If [a statute] would not [create impermissible retroactive effects], then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct."
Source
— Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55 (Quoted as a legal principle supporting the retroactive application of Section 3283.)
DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
Quote #1
"offense involving the sexual or physical abuse . . . of a child."
Source
— Statute (Section 3283) (A legal definition from Section 3283 that Maxwell argues does not apply to her charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
Quote #2
"like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run"
Source
— A.196 (court document) (Cited in a footnote as a conclusion supporting the retroactive application of § 3299.)
DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document