DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
765 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
765 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a response from the prosecution, arguing that the court's jury instructions were proper. It states the court correctly instructed the jury to consider only New York law as the predicate offense for the Mann Act counts and was right to reject the defendant's requests for additional limiting instructions regarding testimony about events in New Mexico and varying ages of consent. The filing asserts that the defendant's claim of potential jury confusion is speculative and implausible.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kate | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of her testimony, for which the Defendant requested limiting instructions.
|
| Annie | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of her testimony, for which the Defendant requested limiting instructions.
|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of her testimony about New Mexico, for which the Defendant requested a limiting instruction.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in a footnote describing the Defendant's proposed jury instruction regarding her intent.
|
| Joyner | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40, 47 (2d Cir. 2002)'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced as the body that rejected the Defendant's requests for jury instructions.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Joyner'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the jurisdiction for the predicate state offense (New York Penal Law Section 130.55) and the location of...
|
|
|
Mentioned as the location of events described in Jane's testimony.
|
Relationships (3)
The document details the Court rejecting requests made by the Defendant regarding jury instructions.
The Defendant sought a limiting instruction regarding Jane's testimony, indicating her testimony was likely damaging to the Defendant's case.
Defendant
→
Legal (Adversarial)
→
government
The footnote mentions the government's burden of proof in the case against the Defendant (Ms. Maxwell).
Key Quotes (3)
"illegal sexual activity as alleged in the indictment."Source
— Court/Indictment
(A phrase the jury was instructed on, which was defined as a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55.)
DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]o prove Counts One and Three, the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell acted with the intent that the minors would engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense."Source
— Defendant (in proposed instruction)
(From a footnote describing the Defendant's proposed jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
Quote #2
"[i]f the individual was at or above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction when the sexual activity occurred, then for the purposes of Counts One and Three, the sexual activity was not illegal."Source
— Defendant (in proposed instruction)
(From a footnote describing the Defendant's proposed jury instruction on ages of consent in different jurisdictions.)
DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,509 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 34 of 45
ran the risk of moving the jury away from consideration of the core of criminality alleged in the Indictment.⁸
The appropriate approach was to instruct the jury on the one and only predicate state offense for the Mann Act counts charged in the Indictment: New York Penal Law Section 130.55. For that reason, the Court also rejected the Defendant’s request to repeat in the charge the limiting instructions as to Kate’s and Annie’s testimony and the Defendant’s request, raised for the first time at the charging conference and well after completion of her testimony, to include an unspecified limiting instruction as to Jane’s New Mexico testimony. Trial Tr. at 2773–77. During the witnesses’ testimony, the jury had yet to be instructed on the meaning of “illegal sexual activity as alleged in the indictment.” But it was unnecessary to repeat the limiting instructions alongside the charge’s definition of “illegal sexual activity.” Id. at 2774–75. The jury now had that phrase clearly defined as a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. In sum, the jury instructions charged that the jury could convict the Defendant only on the predicate state offense of New York law. The jury is presumed to have followed these instructions. See United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40, 47 (2d Cir. 2002).
At bottom, the Defendant asks the Court to speculate based on an ambiguous note that the jury disregarded Jane’s substantial testimony about travel to New York and sexual conduct in New York and further assumed a violation of New York law could be based on conduct only in New Mexico. It is hardly plausible, let alone substantially likely, that this was the jury’s
⁸ The Defendant’s proposed instruction on other jurisdictions’ ages of consent first stated that “[t]o prove Counts One and Three, the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell acted with the intent that the minors would engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” Request to Charge at 51. It then instructed on the ages of consent in several jurisdictions and stated that “[i]f the individual was at or above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction when the sexual activity occurred, then for the purposes of Counts One and Three, the sexual activity was not illegal.” Id. at 52. This proposed instruction would likely have created the confusion the Defendant raises now.
34
DOJ-OGR-00010400
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document