DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg

689 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal opinion / appellate court decision
File Size: 689 KB
Summary

This page is from a legal opinion (likely the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, given the citations) affirming a District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion. Maxwell argued that testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico constituted a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' from the original indictment, violating the Fifth Amendment. The court reviews the denial *de novo* and rejects Maxwell's argument.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Maxwell Defendant/Appellant
Ghislaine Maxwell; appealing a District Court denial regarding constructive amendment arguments.
Jane Victim/Witness
Mentioned in a quoted segment regarding intent to engage in sexual activity.
Witness Witness
Unnamed witness whose testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico is the subject of the appeal argument.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
District Court
The lower court whose denial Maxwell is appealing.
Grand Jury
Referenced in the context of the Fifth Amendment Clause.
2d Cir.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (referenced in footnotes).
DOJ
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).

Timeline (3 events)

2024-01-22
Filing date of this appellate document.
Appeals Court
Court Maxwell
Unknown (During Trial)
Testimony presented regarding a witness's sexual abuse.
New Mexico (abuse location)
Witness Jury
Unknown (Prior)
District Court denied Maxwell's motion for reconsideration.
District Court

Locations (2)

Location Context
Location where a witness's sexual abuse occurred, which Maxwell argued was distinct from the indictment charges.
Referenced in relation to criminal offense laws.

Relationships (1)

Maxwell Perpetrator/Victim (Alleged) Jane
Text references intent that Jane engage in sexual activity.

Key Quotes (3)

"Maxwell argues that testimony about a witness’s sexual abuse in New Mexico presented the jury with another basis for conviction, which is distinct from the charges in the Indictment."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg
Quote #1
"We disagree and affirm the District Court’s denial."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg
Quote #2
"intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document