DOJ-OGR-00021728.jpg
607 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
0
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
607 KB
Summary
This legal document details a specific event during the jury deliberations in the trial of Maxwell. The jury sent a note to Judge Nathan questioning whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in the victim Jane's return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent was allegedly formed. Judge Nathan found the question too complex and referred the jury back to the original instructions, prompting Maxwell to file a letter that night challenging the judge's response.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Alleged to have knowingly transported Jane for sexual activity. Filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Natha...
|
| Jane | Victim |
Allegedly transported by Maxwell with the intent for her to engage in sexual activity.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Instructed the jury on the law, responded to a jury note during deliberations, and was the subject of a letter for re...
|
Timeline (3 events)
The jury was deliberating on the charges against Maxwell, during which they sent a note to the judge for clarification.
Court
the jury
Judge Nathan
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of 'New York law' and 'N.Y. Penal Law'.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the destination of a flight that Jane took.
|
Relationships (3)
The document states that Maxwell was alleged to have knowingly transported Jane for the purpose of sexual activity.
Judge Nathan presided over Maxwell's case, instructed the jury, and was the recipient of a letter from Maxwell seeking reconsideration of a ruling.
Judge Nathan provided instructions to the jury and responded to a note they sent during deliberations.
Key Quotes (3)
"with the intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law."Source
— Indictment (Count Four allegation)
(Describing the allegation against Maxwell in Count Four of the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00021728.jpg
Quote #1
"Under Count Four, 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
— the jury
(A note sent by the jury to the judge during deliberations seeking clarification on the elements of guilt.)
DOJ-OGR-00021728.jpg
Quote #2
"too difficult to parse factually and legally."Source
— Judge Nathan
(Judge Nathan's reason for referring the jury back to the original jury charge instead of directly answering their note.)
DOJ-OGR-00021728.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,521 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page81 of 93
68
Four alleged that Maxwell knowingly transported Jane “with the intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.” (Tr.3037; see Tr.3035 (second element of Count Four requires proof of an intent to violate “New York law as alleged in the indictment”)). Judge Nathan also instructed the jury on one and only one predicate state offense: a violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. (Tr.3034, 3037). The instructions on Count Three incorporated this discussion of the elements of Count Four, and the only statute identified was N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. (Tr.3049-50, 3056-57).
During deliberations, the jury sent the following note:
Under Count Four, 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?
(Tr.3126). The note led to a lengthy discussion, at the conclusion of which Judge Nathan determined she should refer the jury back to the jury charge on the second element of Count Four because the jury note was otherwise “too difficult to parse factually and legally.” (Tr.3126-40).
That night, Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Nathan’s response and raising the possibility of a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance because, in her view, the note showed that
DOJ-OGR-00021728
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document