DOJ-OGR-00000080.tif
35.4 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / court filing
File Size:
35.4 KB
Summary
This document outlines legal arguments concerning Maxwell's trial, specifically addressing the District Court's handling of juror selection and a jury note related to Count Four of the Indictment. It discusses whether Maxwell could be found guilty for aiding in Jane's transportation if the intent for sexual activity was not tied to the New Mexico flight, and references a case (United States v. Ianniello) regarding juror questioning.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
did not challenge the inclusion of other jurors, motion for a new trial, contends the District Court improperly limit...
|
| Jane | Victim/Subject |
transportation of Jane's return flight, intent for Jane to engage in sexual activity
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
questioning Juror 50, Juror 50's role in deliberations
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
noted Maxwell did not challenge jurors, did not abuse its discretion, response to a jury note, determined not to resp...
|
Timeline (4 events)
Maxwell's motion for a new trial denied by District Court.
Jury deliberations during which a note was sent to the District Court.
jury
District Court
District Court's determination not to directly respond to the jury note regarding Count Four.
Hearing on potential juror misconduct involving Juror 50.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
flight to New Mexico
|
Relationships (2)
District Court denied Maxwell's motion, Maxwell contends District Court improperly limited questioning
Key Quotes (3)
""Under Count Four (4), 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
DOJ-OGR-00000080.tif
Quote #1
""parse factually and legally""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000080.tif
Quote #2
""[w]e leave it to the district court's discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may participate in questioning the witnesses, and whether to hold the hearing in camera.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000080.tif
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,637 characters)
17a
fact, as the District Court noted, Maxwell did not
challenge the inclusion of other jurors who disclosed
past experience with sexual abuse, assault, or harass-
ment. This is enough; the District Court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Maxwell's motion for a new
trial.34
4. The District Court's Response to a Jury
Note Did Not Result in a Constructive
Amendment of, or Prejudicial Variance from,
the Allegations in the Indictment
During jury deliberations, the jury sent the
following jury note regarding Count Four of the
Indictment:
Under Count Four (4), 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?35
The District Court determined that it would not
respond to the note directly because it was difficult to
"parse factually and legally" and instead referred the
34 Nor did the District Court err in questioning Juror 50 rather
than allowing the parties to do so. In conducting a hearing on
potential juror misconduct, "[w]e leave it to the district court's
discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may
participate in questioning the witnesses, and whether to hold the
hearing in camera." United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 544
(2d Cir. 1989). And while Maxwell contends that the District
Court improperly limited questioning about Juror 50's role in
deliberations, she both waived that argument below and fails to
show here how any such questioning would not be foreclosed by
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).
35 A-238.
DOJ-OGR-00000080
fact, as the District Court noted, Maxwell did not
challenge the inclusion of other jurors who disclosed
past experience with sexual abuse, assault, or harass-
ment. This is enough; the District Court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Maxwell's motion for a new
trial.34
4. The District Court's Response to a Jury
Note Did Not Result in a Constructive
Amendment of, or Prejudicial Variance from,
the Allegations in the Indictment
During jury deliberations, the jury sent the
following jury note regarding Count Four of the
Indictment:
Under Count Four (4), 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?35
The District Court determined that it would not
respond to the note directly because it was difficult to
"parse factually and legally" and instead referred the
34 Nor did the District Court err in questioning Juror 50 rather
than allowing the parties to do so. In conducting a hearing on
potential juror misconduct, "[w]e leave it to the district court's
discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may
participate in questioning the witnesses, and whether to hold the
hearing in camera." United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 544
(2d Cir. 1989). And while Maxwell contends that the District
Court improperly limited questioning about Juror 50's role in
deliberations, she both waived that argument below and fails to
show here how any such questioning would not be foreclosed by
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).
35 A-238.
DOJ-OGR-00000080
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document