DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg
627 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
627 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, discusses the background facts regarding jury instructions for Mann Act counts in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It establishes that a conviction required proving an intent to violate a specific New York law (Penal Law § 130.55) and includes a court transcript clarifying this point, particularly in relation to the testimony of a witness named Kate.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kate | Witness |
Her testimony was the subject of a motion in limine by the defense, and is discussed in a court transcript regarding ...
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The document discusses the legal requirements for her conviction on Mann Act conspiracies.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in a transcribed courtroom exchange, clarifying legal points with counsel.
|
| MS. MOE | Counsel (implied) |
A speaker in a transcribed courtroom exchange, responding to the Court's questions on behalf of a party (likely the g...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, which confirmed the basis for conviction and is prosecuting Ms. Maxwell.
|
| the Court | Judicial body |
The entity providing limiting instructions and overseeing the trial.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The defense moved in limine to preclude Kate's testimony.
Court
A trial where the legal instructions to the jury regarding Mann Act counts were discussed.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location whose specific law (New York Penal Law, Section 130.55) must be violated for a conviction on the Mann Ac...
|
Relationships (2)
The document describes the government's prosecution of Ms. Maxwell and the legal arguments between the government and the defense.
Key Quotes (5)
"[I]f the only evidence in the case pertained to [Kate], if all the testimony of [Kate] is accepted by the jury, could the defendant be found guilty of any crimes charged in the indictment?"Source
— THE COURT
(Question posed during a courtroom exchange to clarify the legal sufficiency of evidence for a conviction.)
DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg
Quote #1
"The answer is no.... With respect to the Mann Act conspiracies, the particular criminal sexual activity relates to a particular statute in New York...."Source
— MS. MOE
(Response to the Court, confirming that the charges are tied specifically to New York law.)
DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg
Quote #2
"The particular statute in New York ... that’s [130.55] right?"Source
— THE COURT
(Seeking confirmation of the specific New York Penal Law section applicable to the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg
Quote #3
"Yes, your Honor."Source
— MS. MOE
(Confirming the specific statute to the Court.)
DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg
Quote #4
"So the Mann Act ... the case that the government is going to prove here is going to incorporate that as the illegal sexual conduct."Source
— THE COURT
(Summarizing and confirming the government's legal theory for the Mann Act charge.)
DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,812 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 37
A. Background Facts
1. Legal Instructions to the Jury
The possible bases for conviction on the Mann Act counts was an issue that came up repeatedly and litigated extensively in the context of the motions in limine, the Court’s limiting instructions at trial, and the jury charge. On these occasions, the government repeatedly confirmed that a conviction on the Mann Act counts could only be based on an intent to violate New York law—specifically, New York Penal Law, Section 130.55—and not any other state’s penal laws. Yet the government also repeatedly objected to defense efforts to clarify that point and ensure that the jury did not improperly consider evidence of sexual conduct that took place outside of New York.
For example, when the defense moved in limine to preclude Kate’s testimony on the grounds that she was above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdictions and therefore her testimony was not probative of the Mann Act conspiracies, the government confirmed that Ms. Maxwell could only be convicted on the Mann Act conspiracies based on a violation of New York law:
THE COURT: . . . [I]f the only evidence in the case pertained to [Kate], if all the testimony of [Kate] is accepted by the jury, could the defendant be found guilty of any crimes charged in the indictment?
* * *
MS. MOE: . . . The answer is no.... With respect to the Mann Act conspiracies, the particular criminal sexual activity relates to a particular statute in New York....
THE COURT: The particular statute in New York ... that’s [130.55] right?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
* * *
THE COURT: So the Mann Act ... the case that the government is going to prove here is going to incorporate that as the illegal sexual conduct.
3
DOJ-OGR-00008932
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document