DOJ-OGR-00010399.jpg
739 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
739 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely a response or motion, dated April 29, 2022. It defends the Court's decisions regarding jury instructions against objections from the Defendant (Maxwell). The Court rejected the Defendant's requests to limit the charges to specific travel routes (e.g., from Florida to New York) and to instruct the jury on the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Florida, arguing these requests were unnecessary, inaccurate, and would confuse the jury.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Referenced in "Maxwell Br. at 15," indicating a brief filed by the Defendant.
|
| Little | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation "United States v. Little, 828 F. App’x 34, 37–38 (2d Cir. 2020)."
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout the document as the party making objections and requests to the court regarding jury instructions.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
Mentioned throughout as the judicial body making decisions on jury instructions and rejecting the Defendant's requests.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Mentioned as the prosecuting party in the case, which had not charged the Defendant with certain theories of guilt.
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
Referenced in a case citation, referring to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-11-23
Final Pretrial Conference where jury instructions were discussed.
Charging Conference where travel requirements were discussed.
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location of the predicate state law at issue and a destination of travel.
|
|
|
Mentioned as a point of origin for travel in the Defendant's rejected request for jury instruction.
|
|
|
Mentioned as another potential point of origin for travel and a location whose age of consent law the Defendant wante...
|
|
|
Mentioned as a location whose age of consent law the Defendant requested be included in jury instructions.
|
Relationships (2)
The document details the Defendant's legal arguments and requests being rejected by the Court, showing their adversarial roles within a legal proceeding.
The document describes the Government as the prosecuting party that had not charged the Defendant with certain theories of guilt, placing them in an adversarial relationship in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (3)
"stripped of any mention of ‘travel to New York.’"Source
— The Defendant
(The Defendant's objection to the jury charge, as cited from 'Maxwell Br. at 15'.)
DOJ-OGR-00010399.jpg
Quote #1
"Florida to New York"Source
— The Defendant
(Part of the Defendant's rejected request to limit the charge to requiring travel from this specific route.)
DOJ-OGR-00010399.jpg
Quote #2
"‘to wit’ clauses do not modify essential elements of the offense"Source
— United States v. Little, 828 F. App’x 34, 37–38 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order)
(A legal principle cited to support the Court's decision not to limit the charge based on a 'to wit' clause in the Indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00010399.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document