DOJ-OGR-00021136.jpg
588 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
588 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, discusses the conviction of Maxwell on Count Four, which was based on Jane's testimony about sexual activity with Epstein in New Mexico. It argues that the Court's failure to address the jury's misunderstanding, as revealed by a 'Jury Note' concerning the transportation count, warrants vacating Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four and granting a new trial. The document highlights the distinction between the original indictment and the basis for conviction, implicitly linking the 'defendant' in the jury note to Maxwell.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Convicted person |
Convicted of Count Four; convictions on Counts Three and Four are discussed for vacating.
|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Provided testimony about sexual activity/abuse; subject of transportation.
|
| Epstein | Perpetrator |
Involved in sexual activity with Jane at his ranch.
|
| defendant | Accused |
Aided in the transportation of Jane’s return flight (as per the Jury Note).
|
Organizations (2)
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where sexual activity violated New York Penal Law §130.55; sexual activity need not have occurred there.
|
|
|
Location of Epstein's ranch; where Jane's testimony about sexual abuse occurred; mentioned in context of a flight.
|
Relationships (3)
Maxwell was convicted based on Jane’s testimony; the document discusses vacating Maxwell's convictions related to Jane's testimony.
Jane provided testimony about sexual activity with Epstein at his ranch in New Mexico, and sexual abuse in New Mexico.
Key Quotes (1)
"Under Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane’s return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?"Source
— jury
(The exact wording of the 'Jury Note' sent during deliberations.)
DOJ-OGR-00021136.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,363 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page89 of 113
conspiracies (Counts One and Three). There is a substantial likelihood that the
jury believed that sexual activity that violated New York Penal Law §130.55
need not have occurred in New York and that Maxwell was convicted of Count
Four based on Jane’s testimony about sexual activity with Epstein at his ranch
in New Mexico.
jury believed that sexual activity that violated New York Penal Law §130.55
need not have occurred in New York and that Maxwell was convicted of Count
Four based on Jane’s testimony about sexual activity with Epstein at his ranch
in New Mexico.
Jane’s testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico presented the jury
with an alternative basis for conviction that was entirely distinct from the
charges in the Indictment. The Court’s refusal to correct the jury’s obvious
misunderstanding, constituted a constructive amendment and/or a variance
from the charges in the Indictment. Accordingly, this Court should vacate
Maxwell’s convictions on Counts Three and Four and grant a new trial.
with an alternative basis for conviction that was entirely distinct from the
charges in the Indictment. The Court’s refusal to correct the jury’s obvious
misunderstanding, constituted a constructive amendment and/or a variance
from the charges in the Indictment. Accordingly, this Court should vacate
Maxwell’s convictions on Counts Three and Four and grant a new trial.
A. Background Facts
1. The Jury Note
1. The Jury Note
During their deliberations, the jury sent a note (the “Jury Note” or the
“Note”) inquiring about the proper basis to convict under Count Four of the
Indictment (the substantive transportation count). The Jury Note read as
follows:
“Note”) inquiring about the proper basis to convict under Count Four of the
Indictment (the substantive transportation count). The Jury Note read as
follows:
Under Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation
of Jane’s return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if
the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be
found guilty under the second element?
of Jane’s return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if
the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be
found guilty under the second element?
74
DOJ-OGR-00021136
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document