DOJ-OGR-00021051.jpg
682 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
682 KB
Summary
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, related to Case 22-1426. It outlines the arguments for an appeal on behalf of 'Maxwell', alleging multiple errors by the District Court, including the handling of 'Juror 50' in a post-trial hearing, constructively amending the indictment, and applying an incorrect sentencing guideline. The filing seeks to have the sentence vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Mentioned as the subject of a post-trial hearing regarding potential bias, prior abuse, and whether defense counsel w...
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the person convicted by the jury. The document outlines arguments that her conviction and sentence were ...
|
| Defense Counsel | Legal representative |
Mentioned as having been erroneously precluded by the Court from questioning Juror 50.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The District Court | Government agency |
Accused of abusing its discretion, erring in its findings regarding Juror 50, and erring in applying sentencing guide...
|
| The Court | Government agency |
Used interchangeably with 'The District Court', accused of erring in precluding Defense Counsel from questioning Juro...
|
Timeline (3 events)
Post-Trial Hearing, which the filing alleges the District Court conducted improperly.
A scheme to cause underaged girls to travel to New York with an intent to violate New York Law, described as the 'Core of Criminality' of Counts Three and Four.
New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the destination for underaged girls in a scheme that formed the 'Core of Criminality' for counts three a...
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a table of contents for a legal filing by Maxwell's counsel arguing that The District Court made multiple errors that prejudiced Maxwell's case, including abusing its discretion, erring in findings, and applying incorrect sentencing guidelines.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,027 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page4 of 113
2. The McDonough Test: The Second Prong ....................66
E. The District Court Abused its Discretion in the Manner
in Which it Conducted the Post-Trial Hearing ....................68
in Which it Conducted the Post-Trial Hearing ....................68
1. The Court Erred in Precluding Defense Counsel
From Questioning Juror 50..........................................69
From Questioning Juror 50..........................................69
2. FRE 606 Did Not Prevent Inquiry into Juror 50’s
Use of Prior Abuse in Persuading Jury to
Convict Maxwell ............................................................70
Use of Prior Abuse in Persuading Jury to
Convict Maxwell ............................................................70
F. The District Court Erred in Finding that (1) Juror 50
was Not Biased and (2) Juror 50 Would Not Have
Been Stricken Even if He Had Answered the Questions
Accurately ..........................................................................71
was Not Biased and (2) Juror 50 Would Not Have
Been Stricken Even if He Had Answered the Questions
Accurately ..........................................................................71
POINT IV
THE COURT CONSTRUCTIVELY AMENDED COUNTS
THREE AND FOUR OF THE INDICTMENT ..........................................73
THREE AND FOUR OF THE INDICTMENT ..........................................73
A. Background Facts..................................................................74
1. The Jury Note ................................................................74
B. Applicable Law ....................................................................75
1. The “Core of Criminality” of Counts Three and
Four Was a Scheme to Cause Underaged Girls to
Travel to New York with an Intent to Violate New
York Law........................................................................76
Four Was a Scheme to Cause Underaged Girls to
Travel to New York with an Intent to Violate New
York Law........................................................................76
2. There is a Substantial Likelihood that Maxwell
Was Convicted on Counts Three and Four Based
on Conduct Not Charged in the Indictment..................77
Was Convicted on Counts Three and Four Based
on Conduct Not Charged in the Indictment..................77
C. The Variance Between the Proof at Trial and the
Allegations in the Indictment Substantially Prejudiced
Maxwell ................................................................................81
Allegations in the Indictment Substantially Prejudiced
Maxwell ................................................................................81
POINT V
THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED AND REMANDED
FOR RESENTENCING AS THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN
APPLYING AN INCORRECT GUIDLINE RANGE AND
OFFENSE LEVEL ................................................................................82
FOR RESENTENCING AS THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN
APPLYING AN INCORRECT GUIDLINE RANGE AND
OFFENSE LEVEL ................................................................................82
iii
DOJ-OGR-00021051
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document