DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
733 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
733 KB
Summary
This legal document is part of a court filing arguing that the government's summation during a trial did not constructively amend the indictment. The prosecution consistently maintained that the defendant and an associate, Epstein, transported underage girls like "Jane" to New York with the intent for them to be sexually abused there. The defense counters that a jury note suggests the conviction was based on intent for activity in New Mexico, not New York, and that the court erred by not providing a supplemental instruction to clarify this point.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| D'Amelio |
Cited in a legal case, D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419.
|
|
| Jones |
Cited in a legal case, United States v. Jones, 847 F. App’x 28, 30 (2d Cir. 2021).
|
|
| Jane | Victim |
Mentioned as one of the underage girls transported to New York for sexual activity.
|
| Epstein | Accomplice |
Mentioned as having intended with the Defendant for victims to be sexually abused in New York.
|
| Bastian |
Cited in a legal case, Bastian, 770 F.3d at 223.
|
|
| Danielson |
Quoted in a legal citation from the Bastian case, Danielson, 199 F.3d at 670.
|
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Referenced in a citation to a court filing, "Maxwell Reply at 2".
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the legal case, arguing against the Defendant.
|
| Court | government agency |
Refers to the judicial body presiding over the trial, which gave instructions to the jury and responded to a jury note.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Government's summation at trial, where it argued the Defendant intended for victims to be sexually abused in New York.
Court
Government
Defendant
The jury convicted the Defendant.
Court
Jury
Defendant
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the Government argued the Defendant and Epstein intended for sexual activity with underage girls t...
|
|
|
The location where the Defendant contends a jury note revealed the jury convicted her for intending sexual activity t...
|
Relationships (3)
The document states that the "Defendant and Epstein had intended for the victims to be 'sexually abused in New York'" and that they "enticed Jane to travel to New York to be abused."
The document describes the Defendant's role in transporting Jane, an underage girl, for the purpose of sexual activity.
Key Quotes (4)
"set of discrete facts consistent with the charge in the indictment"Source
— D'Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419
(Used to argue that the government's theory of guilt was not new or unidentified.)
DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
Quote #1
"fell squarely within the charged scheme"Source
— United States v. Jones, 847 F. App’x 28, 30
(Used as an example of a case where evidence did not constitute a constructive amendment to an indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
Quote #2
"sexually abused in New York"Source
— Government
(Quoted from the Government's summation, describing the intent of the Defendant and Epstein for the victims.)
DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
Quote #3
"behavior entirely separate from that identified in the indictment"Source
— Bastian, 770 F.3d at 223
(A legal standard quoted to argue that the Government's summation did not describe new criminal behavior outside the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,225 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 28 of 45
part of the same “set of discrete facts consistent with the charge in the indictment,” not a
previously unidentified and independent theory of guilt. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419; see also
United States v. Jones, 847 F. App’x 28, 30 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (no constructive
amendment in sex trafficking case where indictment did not allege “advertising” but the
evidence “fell squarely within the charged scheme” (cleaned up)).
previously unidentified and independent theory of guilt. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419; see also
United States v. Jones, 847 F. App’x 28, 30 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (no constructive
amendment in sex trafficking case where indictment did not allege “advertising” but the
evidence “fell squarely within the charged scheme” (cleaned up)).
Third, the Government’s summation also reflected the core of criminality of transporting
Jane and other underage girls to New York with the intention that sexual activity would occur in
New York. In its summation regarding Count Four, the Government focused on travel to New
York. See Trial Tr. at 2891–92.5 The Government’s explanation of Counts One and Three
followed this pattern as well, with the summation again making clear that the Defendant and
Epstein had intended for the victims to be “sexually abused in New York.” Id. at 2895. Thus,
the Court’s instructions to the jury, the evidence presented at trial, and the Government’s
argument in summation did not describe “behavior entirely separate from that identified in the
indictment,” Bastian, 770 F.3d at 223 (quoting Danielson, 199 F.3d at 670), but instead
consistently captured the core of criminality with which the Defendant was charged.
Jane and other underage girls to New York with the intention that sexual activity would occur in
New York. In its summation regarding Count Four, the Government focused on travel to New
York. See Trial Tr. at 2891–92.5 The Government’s explanation of Counts One and Three
followed this pattern as well, with the summation again making clear that the Defendant and
Epstein had intended for the victims to be “sexually abused in New York.” Id. at 2895. Thus,
the Court’s instructions to the jury, the evidence presented at trial, and the Government’s
argument in summation did not describe “behavior entirely separate from that identified in the
indictment,” Bastian, 770 F.3d at 223 (quoting Danielson, 199 F.3d at 670), but instead
consistently captured the core of criminality with which the Defendant was charged.
2. The jury note and the Court’s response did not result in a
constructive amendment.
constructive amendment.
The Defendant contends that regardless of whether the Court’s prior instructions or
Government’s arguments at trial were proper, a jury note revealed that the jury convicted the
Defendant for intending that Jane engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, not New York. See
Maxwell Reply at 2. She argues that the Court then erred by refusing a supplemental instruction.
The ambiguous note and the Court’s rejection of the Defendant’s proposed responses to it did not
Government’s arguments at trial were proper, a jury note revealed that the jury convicted the
Defendant for intending that Jane engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, not New York. See
Maxwell Reply at 2. She argues that the Court then erred by refusing a supplemental instruction.
The ambiguous note and the Court’s rejection of the Defendant’s proposed responses to it did not
5 In its summation regarding Count Two, which introduced the New York predicate offense to the jury, the
Government also repeatedly emphasized that the Defendant and Epstein enticed Jane to travel to New York to be
abused. See Trial Tr. 2889–90.
Government also repeatedly emphasized that the Defendant and Epstein enticed Jane to travel to New York to be
abused. See Trial Tr. 2889–90.
28
DOJ-OGR-00010394
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document