DOJ-OGR-00021749.jpg
609 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
609 KB
Summary
This legal document is a preliminary statement in reply for an appeal by Ms. Maxwell. She argues that her prosecution was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and that the District Court erred in its handling of ambiguities related to it. Additionally, she contends the court abused its discretion regarding Juror 50, citing the juror's false answers on a questionnaire and concealed past trauma as grounds for a valid challenge for cause.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Appellant |
The central figure in the document, making legal arguments in her appeal.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A juror whose conduct and answers on a questionnaire are being challenged by Ms. Maxwell as grounds for appeal.
|
| Annabi | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the legal citation "U.S. v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985)".
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judiciary |
The court whose reliance on a legal precedent and whose findings concerning Juror 50 are being challenged by Ms. Maxw...
|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of its witnesses whose experiences were analogous to those of Juror 50.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Ms. Maxwell's prosecution, which she argues was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA).
District Court
Relationships (1)
Ms. Maxwell is appealing the District Court's decisions, arguing that its reliance on a case was an error and its findings about Juror 50 were an abuse of discretion.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,425 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page7 of 35
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN REPLY
Ms. Maxwell relies on her arguments in her principal Appellant’s Brief, Points
II and IV, and supplements her arguments in Points I, III, and V herein.
II and IV, and supplements her arguments in Points I, III, and V herein.
Ms. Maxwell argues that she is a third-party beneficiary of the non-prosecution agreement (hereinafter, “NPA”) and, as such, has standing to enforce
the co-conspirator immunity provision which, by its terms, barred this prosecution.
Alternatively, the District Court’s reliance on U.S. v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.
1985) to resolve perceived ambiguities was an error and the District Court should
have ordered a hearing.
the co-conspirator immunity provision which, by its terms, barred this prosecution.
Alternatively, the District Court’s reliance on U.S. v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.
1985) to resolve perceived ambiguities was an error and the District Court should
have ordered a hearing.
Ms. Maxwell further argues that the District Court’s findings and conclusions
concerning Juror 50 were an abuse of discretion in three respects: (1) Juror 50’s
explanations for his false answers to a juror questionnaire were incredible on their
face; (2) Juror 50’s concealed traumatic experience as a victim of childhood sexual
abuse under circumstances analogous to the experiences of the Government
witnesses, if known during voir dire, would have provided a valid basis for a
challenge for cause; and (3) the Court abandoned its obligation to ascertain not
merely the juror’s credibility, but also the validity of a challenge for cause, when it
unduly narrowed the scope of its examination of Juror 50 at the post-trial hearing.
concerning Juror 50 were an abuse of discretion in three respects: (1) Juror 50’s
explanations for his false answers to a juror questionnaire were incredible on their
face; (2) Juror 50’s concealed traumatic experience as a victim of childhood sexual
abuse under circumstances analogous to the experiences of the Government
witnesses, if known during voir dire, would have provided a valid basis for a
challenge for cause; and (3) the Court abandoned its obligation to ascertain not
merely the juror’s credibility, but also the validity of a challenge for cause, when it
unduly narrowed the scope of its examination of Juror 50 at the post-trial hearing.
1
DOJ-OGR-00021749
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document