DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
725 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
725 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, defends the court's decision to reject the defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues the requested instructions were unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate, particularly the claim that sexual activity outside New York could not form the basis for the charges. The document asserts that the existing jury charge correctly focused the inquiry on the violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, specifically concerning the overt act of transporting the victim, Jane, from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexual abuse.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Arroyo | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the legal citation "Arroyo v. Jones, 685 F.2d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1982)".
|
| Jones | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the legal citation "Arroyo v. Jones, 685 F.2d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1982)".
|
| Kopstein | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the legal citation "United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2014)".
|
| Lefkowitz | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the legal citation "United States v. Lefkowitz, 284 F.2d 310, 314 (2d Cir. 1960)".
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in "Maxwell Reply at 9 n.4.". The context implies Maxwell is the Defendant in the current case.
|
| Jane | Victim |
Mentioned as the person who traveled from Florida to New York for the purpose of being sexually abused and who the De...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Second Circuit | government agency |
Referenced as a court that has cautioned on supplemental jury instructions and as the circuit for several cited cases.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal citations "United States v. Kopstein" and "United States v. Lefkowitz".
|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in the footnote as the prosecuting party that must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced as the body that provided the jury charge and that the Defendant argues should have provided a different i...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the origin of Jane's travel.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the destination of Jane's travel and the location where the alleged sexual activity was intended to occu...
|
|
|
The specific location where Jane was allegedly to be sexually abused.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the Defendant's alleged actions of transporting Jane from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexually abusing her, which forms the basis of criminal charges (Counts Two and Four).
Key Quotes (5)
"enjoy special prominence in the minds of jurors"Source
— The Second Circuit (citing Arroyo v. Jones)
(A caution from the Second Circuit regarding supplemental jury instructions.)
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
Quote #1
"crucial importance"Source
— The Second Circuit (citing United States v. Kopstein)
(Describing the need for complete accuracy in jury instructions.)
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
Quote #2
"a criminal offense under New York law"Source
— Court (in Jury Charge)
(Part of the jury charge specifying the nature of the inquiry.)
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
Quote #3
"from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55"Source
— Court (in Jury Charge)
(The specific overt act described in the jury instructions.)
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
Quote #4
"sexual activity in any state other than New York cannot form the basis"Source
— Defendant (in proposed instruction)
(A legally inaccurate statement from the defendant's rejected proposal for jury instructions.)
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
Quote #5
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document