DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
740 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal brief/memorandum)
File Size:
740 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 647, filed March 11, 2022) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the jury may have erroneously convicted Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four based on a finding that she intended sexual activity to occur in New Mexico, rather than New York as required by law. The text cites a 'Jury Note' (Court Exhibit #15) as evidence that the jury was confused about the location requirement and asserts the Court failed to correct this misunderstanding.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'Ms. Maxwell'; document argues her conviction on Counts One, Three, and Four may be legally flawed due...
|
| Jane | Victim (Pseudonym) |
Mentioned as a victim regarding 'Count Four'; discussion centers on whether Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in se...
|
| The Jury | Decision Makers |
Sent a note (Exhibit #15) indicating potential confusion about the location requirements (NY vs NM) for the conviction.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Gross).
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Parker).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Referenced in footer code 'DOJ-OGR-00010272'.
|
|
| The Government |
Argued there was 'no likelihood' of error; opposing the defense's current argument.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-03-11
Filing of Document 647 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Southern District of New York
Defense Counsel
Court
Unknown
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the law required the intended sexual activity to take place for a valid conviction.
|
|
|
The location where the defense argues the jury may have believed the sexual activity was intended to occur, leading t...
|
Relationships (1)
Discussion of Maxwell's intent for Jane to engage in sexual activity.
Key Quotes (4)
"the dispute is whether there is a substantial likelihood that the jury convicted Ms. Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four without finding that she intended Jane and the other victims to engage in sexual activity in New York"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
Quote #1
"Based on a plain reading of the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15), it is substantially likely that this is exactly what happened in this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
Quote #2
"the Jury Note laid bare that the jury was confused about that element and had the mistaken belief that if it found that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico... it could convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four without finding that she intended Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
Quote #3
"it was incumbent on the Court to correct the jury’s misunderstanding of an essential element of the offense with a supplemental instruction"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document