DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg
743 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
5
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
743 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, details the defense's request for an additional jury instruction concerning Mann Act counts, arguing against conviction based solely on New Mexico conduct. The Court declined this instruction, and the jury subsequently convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four, with charges also in Counts One and Three. The document also cites applicable law regarding constructive amendments, defining them and explaining their impact on a defendant's Grand Jury Clause rights.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane |
Subject of alleged sexual activity and transportation by the Defendant.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the case, convicted on Count Four and charged in Counts One and Three.
|
| Gross |
Defendant in the cited legal case, United States v. Gross.
|
|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ms. Maxwell, the party whose actions and intent are being judged in the case.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the legal case.
|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the cited legal case, United States v. Gross.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | court |
Southern District of New York, the court that issued the cited opinion.
|
Timeline (5 events)
2017-10-18
A legal ruling from United States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y.) was cited.
S.D.N.Y.
The defense argued that it would be insufficient and improper for the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell based solely on New Mexico conduct.
The Court declined to give the supplemental instruction requested by the defense.
Court
The jury ultimately convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four.
jury
Ms. Maxwell
Ms. Maxwell was charged with two Mann Act conspiracies in Counts One and Three.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where alleged sexual activity and transportation were intended to occur, and where New York Penal Law 130.55...
|
|
|
Location of conduct that the defense argued should not be the sole basis for conviction.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states the Defendant (Ms. Maxwell) transported Jane with the intent that Jane would engage in sexual activity.
The document refers to 'the Defendant' and later explicitly names 'Ms. Maxwell' as the one convicted, indicating they are the same person.
Key Quotes (2)
"To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the terms of [an] indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg
Quote #1
"Because the doctrine of constructive amendment protects a defendant’s Grand Jury Clause rights, a constructive amendment constitutes a ‘per se violation’ of the defendant’s constitutional rights—i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,205 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 12 of 37
The defense followed up with a letter requesting that the Court give the jury the
following additional instruction to avoid a conviction on the substantive Mann Act counts based
on a constructive amendment or a prejudicial variance:
following additional instruction to avoid a conviction on the substantive Mann Act counts based
on a constructive amendment or a prejudicial variance:
As to the third element of Count Two, you must determine whether the
Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant acted with
the intent that Jane would engage in sexual activity within the state of New York
in violation of New York Penal Law 130.55.
Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant acted with
the intent that Jane would engage in sexual activity within the state of New York
in violation of New York Penal Law 130.55.
As to the second element of Count Four, you must determine whether the
Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant transported
Jane with the intent that Jane would engage in sexual activity within the state of
New York in violation of New York Penal Law 130.55.
Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant transported
Jane with the intent that Jane would engage in sexual activity within the state of
New York in violation of New York Penal Law 130.55.
An intent that Jane engage in sexual activity in any state other than New York
cannot form the basis of these two elements of Counts Two and Four.
cannot form the basis of these two elements of Counts Two and Four.
(Dkt. 566). The defense further argued that it would be insufficient and improper for the jury to
convict Ms. Maxwell based solely on New Mexico conduct and that the instruction was
necessary to prevent that outcome. Tr. 3152:11-3154:10. The Court declined to give the
supplemental instruction. The jury ultimately convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four and the
two Mann Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three.
convict Ms. Maxwell based solely on New Mexico conduct and that the instruction was
necessary to prevent that outcome. Tr. 3152:11-3154:10. The Court declined to give the
supplemental instruction. The jury ultimately convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four and the
two Mann Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three.
B. Applicable Law
“To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the
terms of [an] indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions
which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood
that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the
indictment.” United States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 18, 2017) (cleaned up). “Because the doctrine of constructive amendment protects a
defendant’s Grand Jury Clause rights, a constructive amendment constitutes a ‘per se violation’
of the defendant’s constitutional rights—i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a
“To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the
terms of [an] indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions
which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood
that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the
indictment.” United States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 18, 2017) (cleaned up). “Because the doctrine of constructive amendment protects a
defendant’s Grand Jury Clause rights, a constructive amendment constitutes a ‘per se violation’
of the defendant’s constitutional rights—i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a
7
DOJ-OGR-00008936
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document