DOJ-OGR-00021142.jpg
578 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
578 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that Maxwell's conviction on Count Four (substantive transportation) was likely improper. The argument posits that the jury convicted her based on arranging a return flight for 'Jane' from New Mexico after the alleged sexual abuse had already occurred, and the Court's refusal to provide a clarifying instruction allowed this. This potential error also casts doubt on the validity of the conviction for a related conspiracy charge, Count Three.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Subject of conviction |
Mentioned as the individual convicted on Count Four and Count Three, whose role in arranging a flight is central to t...
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned as the person for whom Maxwell arranged a return flight from New Mexico.
|
| D'Amelio |
Mentioned in a legal case citation (D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419-21) used to support an argument.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the judicial body that refused to give the jury a supplemental instruction.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location from which Jane's return flight was arranged.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of the requirement to violate New York law for the conspiracy counts.
|
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document