DOJ-OGR-00000078.tif
38.9 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / court filing
File Size:
38.9 KB
Summary
This document discusses legal arguments related to the application of statutes of limitations for sexual abuse charges under the PROTECT Act, specifically as it pertains to Maxwell's conduct. It also details Maxwell's appeal for a new trial, arguing that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection deprived her of a fair trial, a motion which the District Court denied. The document cites several legal precedents regarding the definition and application of 'abuse of discretion' in judicial review.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant / Appellant |
Contends she was deprived of a constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury; motion for a new trial denied.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Failed to accurately respond to questions about sexual abuse history during jury selection in Maxwell's case.
|
| Rivas | Party in a cited case |
Cited in Rivas v. Brattesani
|
| Brattesani | Party in a cited case |
Cited in Rivas v. Brattesani
|
| Ferguson | Party in a cited case |
Cited in United States v. Ferguson
|
| Sims | Party in a cited case |
Cited in In re Sims
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
Denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial; its discretion is under review.
|
|
| Congress |
Intended to extend time for sexual abuse charges with the PROTECT Act.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Special evidentiary hearing concerning Juror 50's conduct.
District Court
Key Quotes (3)
"The statutory text makes clear that Congress intended to extend the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for pre-enactment conduct as the prior statute of limitations was inadequate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000078.tif
Quote #1
"[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000078.tif
Quote #2
"the term of art "abuse of discretion" includes errors of law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or "a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000078.tif
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,754 characters)
15a
limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution
of these offenses will apply-plainly requires that it
prevent the application of any statute of limitations
that would otherwise apply to past conduct.
The statutory text makes clear that Congress
intended to extend the time to bring charges of sexual
abuse for pre-enactment conduct as the prior statute
of limitations was inadequate. This is enough to
conclude that the PROTECT Act's amendment to
§ 3283 applies to Maxwell's conduct as charged in the
Indictment.
3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its
Discretion in Denying Maxwell's Motion for
a New Trial
Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her
constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury
because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to
several questions related to his history of sexual abuse
as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection.
Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District
Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
We review a District Court's denial of a motion for a
new trial for abuse of discretion. 27 We have been
extremely reluctant to "haul jurors in after they have
27 See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). “[W]e
are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply
because she has made a different decision than we would have
made in the first instance." United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d
129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). We have repeatedly explained that the
term of art "abuse of discretion" includes errors of law, a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence, or "a decision that cannot
be located within the range of permissible decisions." In re Sims,
534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
DOJ-OGR-00000078
limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution
of these offenses will apply-plainly requires that it
prevent the application of any statute of limitations
that would otherwise apply to past conduct.
The statutory text makes clear that Congress
intended to extend the time to bring charges of sexual
abuse for pre-enactment conduct as the prior statute
of limitations was inadequate. This is enough to
conclude that the PROTECT Act's amendment to
§ 3283 applies to Maxwell's conduct as charged in the
Indictment.
3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its
Discretion in Denying Maxwell's Motion for
a New Trial
Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her
constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury
because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to
several questions related to his history of sexual abuse
as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection.
Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District
Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
We review a District Court's denial of a motion for a
new trial for abuse of discretion. 27 We have been
extremely reluctant to "haul jurors in after they have
27 See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). “[W]e
are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply
because she has made a different decision than we would have
made in the first instance." United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d
129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). We have repeatedly explained that the
term of art "abuse of discretion" includes errors of law, a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence, or "a decision that cannot
be located within the range of permissible decisions." In re Sims,
534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
DOJ-OGR-00000078
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document