DOJ-OGR-00008795.jpg
569 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
0
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
569 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that the jury in Ms. Maxwell's trial is confused. The author contends that the court's response to a jury note improperly allows them to consider conduct that occurred in New Mexico as a basis for conviction on counts requiring a violation of New York law. The filing cites legal precedent to argue that New York lacks jurisdiction over conduct occurring entirely out-of-state and that this issue could warrant vacating a potential conviction.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | The Honorable |
Recipient of the document.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the legal argument, who the jury may convict based on conduct in New Mexico.
|
| Carvajal |
Named in the case citation 'People v. Carvajal'.
|
|
| McLaughlin |
Named in the case citation 'People v. McLaughlin'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-12-27
A trial where the jury is deliberating on charges against Ms. Maxwell, specifically Counts Two and Four.
New York
A return flight from New Mexico, which Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have aided in.
from New Mexico
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the jurisdiction whose laws are in question and where conduct must have occurred for criminal jurisdicti...
|
|
|
Mentioned as the location of alleged conduct that the document argues cannot be the basis for a conviction under New ...
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan concerning the trial of the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"instruction is not itself erroneous or highly confusing, a supplemental instruction prompted by a jury question may be so muddled as to warrant vacatur."Source
— Id. at 172
(Cited as a legal standard for when a supplemental jury instruction can be grounds for overturning a verdict.)
DOJ-OGR-00008795.jpg
Quote #1
"CPL 20.20[] has codified the general principle that, for New York to exercise criminal jurisdiction, some alleged conduct or a consequence of that conduct must have occurred in the state."Source
— People v. Carvajal, 6 N.Y.3d 305, 312 (2005)
(Cited to support the argument that conduct in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a conviction under New York law.)
DOJ-OGR-00008795.jpg
Quote #2
"the trial court should charge the jury that jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."Source
— People v. McLaughlin, 80 N.Y.2d 466, 472 (N.Y. 1992)
(Cited to argue that the jury must be instructed to find jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt if it is disputed.)
DOJ-OGR-00008795.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,585 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 6 of 7
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 27, 2021
Page 6
December 27, 2021
Page 6
instruction is not itself erroneous or highly confusing, a supplemental instruction prompted by a
jury question may be so muddled as to warrant vacatur.” Id. at 172.
jury question may be so muddled as to warrant vacatur.” Id. at 172.
The jury note indicates that the jury is confused about the second element of Count Four,
and by extension, the third element of Count Two. Both counts require an intent to violate New
York law and cannot be based on any conduct that allegedly occurred in New Mexico (or any
other state besides New York). The court’s answer to the jury’s question permits the jury to
convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on alleged conduct occurring in New Mexico—aiding
in a return flight from New Mexico. Not only is that conduct not charged in the indictment (see
discussion above), it also is not illegal under New York law. Under New York law, an intent to
engage in sexual activity in any other state cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law,
as charged in Counts Two and Four. See People v. Carvajal, 6 N.Y.3d 305, 312 (2005) (“CPL
20.20[] has codified the general principle that, for New York to exercise criminal jurisdiction,
some alleged conduct or a consequence of that conduct must have occurred in the state.”). If the
defendant disputes the evidence of the State’s prosecutorial authority at trial, “the trial court
should charge the jury that jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v.
McLaughlin, 80 N.Y.2d 466, 472 (N.Y. 1992).
and by extension, the third element of Count Two. Both counts require an intent to violate New
York law and cannot be based on any conduct that allegedly occurred in New Mexico (or any
other state besides New York). The court’s answer to the jury’s question permits the jury to
convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on alleged conduct occurring in New Mexico—aiding
in a return flight from New Mexico. Not only is that conduct not charged in the indictment (see
discussion above), it also is not illegal under New York law. Under New York law, an intent to
engage in sexual activity in any other state cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law,
as charged in Counts Two and Four. See People v. Carvajal, 6 N.Y.3d 305, 312 (2005) (“CPL
20.20[] has codified the general principle that, for New York to exercise criminal jurisdiction,
some alleged conduct or a consequence of that conduct must have occurred in the state.”). If the
defendant disputes the evidence of the State’s prosecutorial authority at trial, “the trial court
should charge the jury that jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v.
McLaughlin, 80 N.Y.2d 466, 472 (N.Y. 1992).
2068538.1
DOJ-OGR-00008795
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document