DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
587 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal appellate brief / court filing
File Size:
587 KB
Summary
This page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) argues two main points regarding the Defendant's conviction and sentencing. First, it claims the Court failed to correct a juror misunderstanding regarding 'Count Four,' specifically whether the illegal sexual activity involving victim 'Jane' had to occur in New York versus New Mexico. Second, it argues the sentencing guidelines were miscalculated, specifically disputing an 'aggravating role adjustment' regarding the supervision of another criminal participant.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Appellant/Defendant |
Subject of the appeal, arguing against conviction on Count Four and sentencing calculation. (Contextually Ghislaine M...
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Testified about sexual abuse in New Mexico; Defendant allegedly caused her to travel to New York.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judicial Body |
Refused to correct juror misunderstanding; sentenced the Defendant.
|
| The Jury | Jurors |
Sent a note indicating confusion regarding the location of sexual activity for Count Four.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer stamp)
|
|
| New York Penal Law |
Legal statute referenced (§ 130.55)
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location Jane traveled to; jurisdiction of Penal Law § 130.55.
|
|
|
Location where Jane testified sexual abuse occurred.
|
Relationships (2)
Text states Defendant caused Jane to travel for illegal sexual activity.
Text mentions an 'aggravating role adjustment' for supervising another criminal participant, which the defense argues had 'no evidence'.
Key Quotes (5)
"Under Count Four, it was necessary to prove that Defendant caused Jane to travel to New York with the intent that she would engage in illegal sexual activity"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
Quote #1
"A juror note plainly indicated that the jury believed that the sexual activity intended need not have occurred in New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
Quote #2
"Jane’s testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico... presented the jury with an alternative basis for conviction"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
Quote #3
"Defendant’s sentence was predicated on a miscalculation of the guideline range"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
Quote #4
"the court erroneously applied the aggravating role adjustment when there was no evidence that defendant supervised another criminal participant."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
Quote #5
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document