DOJ-OGR-00021798.jpg
723 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
723 KB
Summary
This document, a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses an appeal related to Maxwell's prosecution. It addresses five key questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution by the USAO-SDNY, the compliance of Maxwell's March 29, 2021 indictment with the statute of limitations, and the District Court's discretion in denying a new trial and its response to a jury note. The document concludes that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution, her indictment complied with limitations, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
His Non-Prosecution Agreement ('NPA') is discussed in relation to Maxwell's prosecution.
|
|
| Maxwell |
The subject of the prosecution and appeal, including her indictment, Rule 33 motion, and sentence.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The District Court | Judicial body |
Imposed a fine, denied Maxwell's Rule 33 motion, and its response to a jury note was reviewed on appeal.
|
| United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida | Government agency |
Referred to as 'USAO-SDFL', party to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement.
|
| United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York | Government agency |
Referred to as 'USAO-SDNY', prosecuted Maxwell; the document discusses whether Epstein's NPA barred this prosecution.
|
| DOJ | Government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00021798).
|
Timeline (4 events)
2021-03-29
Maxwell's second superseding indictment
Denial of Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial
District Court's response to a jury note
Appeal addressing five questions regarding Maxwell's prosecution and sentence
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Associated with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
|
|
|
Associated with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (3)
Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is discussed in relation to whether it barred Maxwell's prosecution.
The District Court imposed a fine on Maxwell, denied her Rule 33 motion, and its actions were reviewed on appeal concerning her case.
USAO-SDNY prosecuted Maxwell.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,780 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page4 of 26
of three years, three years, and five years, respectively. The District
Court also imposed a fine of $250,000 on each count for a total of
$750,000.
Court also imposed a fine of $250,000 on each count for a total of
$750,000.
On appeal, the questions presented are (1) whether Jeffrey
Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL")
barred Maxwell's prosecution by the United States Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY"); (2) whether
Maxwell's second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021 (the
"Indictment") complied with the statute of limitations; (3) whether the
District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33
motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth
Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) whether the District
Court's response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment
of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment; and
(5) whether Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable.
Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL")
barred Maxwell's prosecution by the United States Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY"); (2) whether
Maxwell's second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021 (the
"Indictment") complied with the statute of limitations; (3) whether the
District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33
motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth
Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) whether the District
Court's response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment
of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment; and
(5) whether Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable.
We hold that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution
by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. We hold
that Maxwell's Indictment complied with the statute of limitations as
18 U.S.C. § 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for
offenses committed before the date of the statute's enactment. We
further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror's
erroneous answers during voir dire. We also hold that the District
Court's response to a jury note did not result in a constructive
amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the
Indictment.
by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. We hold
that Maxwell's Indictment complied with the statute of limitations as
18 U.S.C. § 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for
offenses committed before the date of the statute's enactment. We
further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror's
erroneous answers during voir dire. We also hold that the District
Court's response to a jury note did not result in a constructive
amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the
Indictment.
4
DOJ-OGR-00021798
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document