DOJ-OGR-00014852.jpg
710 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
710 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court opinion regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's June 29, 2022, conviction for conspiracy, transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking. Maxwell's appeal raised five issues, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement barred her prosecution and other procedural matters. The court found no errors in the District Court's handling of the case and affirmed the judgment of conviction.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant appealing her June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
The judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York who presided over Maxwell's case.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to his Non-Prosecution Agreement, which was a point of appeal for Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court for the Southern District of New York | Government agency |
The court where Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted and from which she is appealing.
|
| United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida | Government agency |
The office that had a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York | Government agency |
The office that prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2021-03-29
A second superseding indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell was issued.
Southern District of New York
2022-06-29
Judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her conviction, raising five specific questions for the appellate court.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of the United States District Court where Maxwell was convicted.
|
|
|
The location of the U.S. Attorney's Office that had a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell's appeal argued that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida should have barred her own prosecution, indicating a legal connection between their cases.
Key Quotes (1)
"Identifying no errors in the District Court’s conduct of this complex case, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction."Source
— The appellate court
(The final sentence of the main text, stating the court's decision to uphold the conviction.)
DOJ-OGR-00014852.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,717 characters)
Case 20-cr-00330-PAE Document 780-2 Filed 12/02/21 Page 2 of 26
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). She was principally sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release.
On appeal, the questions presented are whether (1) Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; (2) a second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021, complied with the statute of limitations; (3) the District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) the District Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the second superseding indictment; and (5) Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
Identifying no errors in the District Court’s conduct of this complex case, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
2
DOJ-OGR-00014852
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document