DOJ-OGR-00010271.jpg
746 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
746 KB
Summary
This legal document is a reply memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 11, 2022. The defense argues that the court's response to a jury note was erroneous, asserting that both the prosecution and defense agree that a conviction on the Mann Act counts required proving Maxwell's intent for illegal sexual activity to occur specifically within New York. The filing suggests that allowing for a conviction based on intent for activity in other locations, like New Mexico, would constitute a constructive amendment to the indictment.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the person submitting the Reply Memorandum and the defendant in the case (Ms. Maxwell).
|
| Jane | Victim |
Mentioned as a person allegedly transported by Ms. Maxwell for the purpose of engaging in criminal sexual activity.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of its response to a jury note and its jury instructions.
|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned as the opposing party in the legal motion, representing the prosecution.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-03-11
Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of her Post-Trial Motions.
The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, where she was convicted of Mann Act offenses.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the criminal sexual activity was required to be intended to occur for a conviction on the specifie...
|
|
|
Given as an example of a location other than New York where intended sexual activity would not be sufficient for conv...
|
Relationships (1)
The document discusses the legal requirement to prove that Ms. Maxwell "knowingly transported Jane with the intent that Jane engage in criminal sexual activity in New York".
Key Quotes (2)
"As the defendant correctly states … ‘it was necessary to prove that [the defendant] enticed or caused underaged girls to travel to New York, or conspired to do the same, with the intent that they would engage in illegal sexual activity that violated New York law.’"Source
— the government
(Quoted from the government's Opposition filing (Opp. at 6-7), agreeing with the defendant's statement on the required proof for conviction.)
DOJ-OGR-00010271.jpg
Quote #1
"That is the core of criminality charged in the S2 Indictment, and it is what the Government proved at trial and the Court captured in its jury instructions."Source
— the government
(Quoted from the government's Opposition filing (Opp. at 6) regarding the essential element of the charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00010271.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,185 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 24
Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Post-
Trial Motions (“Motion” or “Mot.”).
Trial Motions (“Motion” or “Mot.”).
I. The Court’s Response to the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15) Was Erroneous and Resulted in a Constructive Amendment/Variance.
As the government states in its Opposition to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion (“Opp.”), the parties
agree that the Mann Act offenses for which Ms. Maxwell was convicted required the following
proof of intent: that Ms. Maxwell “knowingly transported Jane with the intent that Jane engage
in criminal sexual activity in New York” (Count Four) and that she “conspir[ed] to entice and
transport minors in interstate commerce with the intent that they engage in criminal sexual
activity in New York” (Counts One and Three). (Opp. at 6 (emphasis added)). Stated differently,
the government agrees that if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane or the other
victims of the Mann Act conspiracies to engage in sexual activity in some place other than New
York, such as New Mexico, that would not be sufficient, by itself, to convict Ms. Maxwell of the
Mann Act counts. (Opp. at 6-7 (“As the defendant correctly states … ‘it was necessary to prove
that [the defendant] enticed or caused underaged girls to travel to New York, or conspired to do
the same, with the intent that they would engage in illegal sexual activity that violated New York
law.’” (quoting Mot. at 1) (emphasis in original)).
agree that the Mann Act offenses for which Ms. Maxwell was convicted required the following
proof of intent: that Ms. Maxwell “knowingly transported Jane with the intent that Jane engage
in criminal sexual activity in New York” (Count Four) and that she “conspir[ed] to entice and
transport minors in interstate commerce with the intent that they engage in criminal sexual
activity in New York” (Counts One and Three). (Opp. at 6 (emphasis added)). Stated differently,
the government agrees that if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane or the other
victims of the Mann Act conspiracies to engage in sexual activity in some place other than New
York, such as New Mexico, that would not be sufficient, by itself, to convict Ms. Maxwell of the
Mann Act counts. (Opp. at 6-7 (“As the defendant correctly states … ‘it was necessary to prove
that [the defendant] enticed or caused underaged girls to travel to New York, or conspired to do
the same, with the intent that they would engage in illegal sexual activity that violated New York
law.’” (quoting Mot. at 1) (emphasis in original)).
Similarly, the government does not dispute that, for purposes of a constructive
amendment analysis, Ms. Maxwell’s intent to have Jane or the other victims of the Mann Act
conspiracies engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New York law
was an “essential element” of Counts One, Three, and Four, and part of the “core of criminality”
for those charges. (Opp. at 6 (“That is the core of criminality charged in the S2 Indictment, and
it is what the Government proved at trial and the Court captured in its jury instructions.”)). The
only dispute is whether “the evidence or jury instructions at trial created a substantial likelihood
amendment analysis, Ms. Maxwell’s intent to have Jane or the other victims of the Mann Act
conspiracies engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New York law
was an “essential element” of Counts One, Three, and Four, and part of the “core of criminality”
for those charges. (Opp. at 6 (“That is the core of criminality charged in the S2 Indictment, and
it is what the Government proved at trial and the Court captured in its jury instructions.”)). The
only dispute is whether “the evidence or jury instructions at trial created a substantial likelihood
DOJ-OGR-00010271
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document