DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
633 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
633 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of an appeal, addresses Ghislaine Maxwell's claims that her trial was unfair and her sentence unreasonable. The court rejects her argument that evidence of her conduct in New Mexico was prejudicial, noting the evidence was disclosed weeks before trial. The document also affirms that her 240-month sentence, which included a leadership enhancement, was procedurally reasonable.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout the document as the defendant appealing her conviction and sentence. She is stated to have trans...
|
| Jane | Victim |
Mentioned as a victim who was transported to New York by Maxwell for sexual abuse and who suffered abuse in New Mexico.
|
| Epstein | Co-conspirator |
Mentioned in a footnote as having a ranch in New Mexico and being involved with the Defendant (Maxwell) in a scheme t...
|
| Lebedev | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Lebedev' in footnote 50.
|
| Dove | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Dove, 884 F.3d at 149' in footnote 48.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Government agency |
Mentioned as the court that found Maxwell guilty, applied a sentencing enhancement, and issued her sentence.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Maxwell transported Jane for sexual abuse and where the Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse ...
|
|
|
Location where Maxwell's conduct occurred, where Jane suffered abuse, and the location of Epstein's ranch.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a footnote as a location where victims were groomed for abuse.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that 'Maxwell transported Jane to New York for sexual abuse' and that Jane suffered abuse in New Mexico as part of Maxwell's conduct.
Key Quotes (5)
"materially different"Source
— Maxwell (argument)
(Used to describe Maxwell's argument that the evidence presented was different from the allegations in the Indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
Quote #1
"substantial prejudice."Source
— Legal standard
(A legal standard that Maxwell failed to demonstrate regarding the evidence of her conduct in New Mexico.)
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
Quote #2
"unfairly and substantially"Source
— Legal standard
(The document concludes Maxwell was not 'unfairly and substantially' prejudiced by the evidence presented at trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
Quote #3
"[t]he Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse underage girls in New York. In service of this scheme, the Indictment alleged that Epstein and the Defendant groomed the victims for abuse at various properties and in various states, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico."Source
— District Court
(A finding by the District Court, quoted in a footnote, explaining the scope of the indictment against Maxwell.)
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
Quote #4
"[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial"Source
— Finding in United States v. Lebedev
(Quoted in a footnote from a previous case to support the conclusion that timely disclosure of evidence prevents a finding of unfair prejudice.)
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,694 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page23 of 26
“materially different” from the allegations in the Indictment.48 The evidence indicated that Maxwell transported Jane to New York for sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. Maxwell knew that the evidence also included conduct in New Mexico.49 Furthermore, Maxwell cannot demonstrate “substantial prejudice.” Maxwell received—over three weeks before trial—notes of Jane’s interview recording the abuse she suffered in New Mexico. This is enough to conclude that Maxwell was not “unfairly and substantially” prejudiced.50
5. Maxwell’s Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable
Lastly, Maxwell argues that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the District Court erred in applying a leadership sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and inadequately explained its above-Guidelines sentence.51 We disagree.
48 Dove, 884 F.3d at 149.
49 As the District Court found, “[t]he Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse underage girls in New York. In service of this scheme, the Indictment alleged that Epstein and the Defendant groomed the victims for abuse at various properties and in various states, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico.” A-393.
50 See United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (concluding that a defendant was not “unfairly and substantially” prejudiced because “[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial”).
51 At sentencing, the District Court calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Maxwell to a slightly above-Guidelines term of 240 months’ imprisonment.
23
DOJ-OGR-00021817
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document