DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
633 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
5
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
633 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 22-1426), argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's claims of trial prejudice and unreasonable sentencing. It asserts that evidence of her criminal conduct in New Mexico was properly included and did not cause 'substantial prejudice,' as her defense received related interview notes from a victim named Jane well before trial. The document also defends Maxwell's 240-month sentence as procedurally reasonable, countering her argument that the District Court erred in its application of sentencing guidelines.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout the document as the defendant appealing her sentence. The text discusses evidence against her, h...
|
| Jane | Victim |
Mentioned as a victim whom Maxwell transported to New York for sexual abuse. Notes from her interview about abuse in ...
|
| Epstein | Co-conspirator |
Mentioned in a footnote as having a ranch in New Mexico and being alleged, along with Maxwell, to have groomed victim...
|
| Lebedev |
Mentioned in a footnote as the defendant in the case United States v. Lebedev, used as a legal citation.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Government agency |
Mentioned as the court that sentenced Maxwell and whose decisions are being reviewed in this document.
|
Timeline (5 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Maxwell transported Jane for sexual abuse and where the Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse ...
|
|
|
Location where some of the criminal conduct occurred, where Jane suffered abuse, and where Epstein had a ranch.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a footnote as a location where victims were groomed for abuse.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that "Maxwell transported Jane to New York for sexual abuse" and that Jane suffered abuse in New Mexico, which was part of the evidence against Maxwell.
Key Quotes (5)
"materially different"Source
— Maxwell (implied)
(Used to describe Maxwell's argument that the evidence presented was different from the allegations in the Indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
Quote #1
"substantial prejudice"Source
— Legal standard
(A legal standard that Maxwell failed to demonstrate regarding the evidence presented at her trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
Quote #2
"unfairly and substantially"Source
— Legal standard
(A legal standard for prejudice, which the document concludes Maxwell did not suffer.)
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
Quote #3
"[t]he Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse underage girls in New York. In service of this scheme, the Indictment alleged that Epstein and the Defendant groomed the victims for abuse at various properties and in various states, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico."Source
— District Court
(A finding by the District Court, quoted in a footnote, describing the charges against Maxwell and Epstein.)
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
Quote #4
"[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial"Source
— Court in United States v. Lebedev
(Quoted from a legal precedent (United States v. Lebedev) to support the argument that timely disclosure of evidence prevents unfair prejudice.)
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,717 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page23 of 26
“materially different” from the allegations in the Indictment.48 The
evidence indicated that Maxwell transported Jane to New York for
sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. Maxwell knew that the
evidence also included conduct in New Mexico.49 Furthermore,
Maxwell cannot demonstrate “substantial prejudice.” Maxwell
received—over three weeks before trial—notes of Jane’s interview
recording the abuse she suffered in New Mexico. This is enough to
conclude that Maxwell was not “unfairly and substantially”
prejudiced.50
evidence indicated that Maxwell transported Jane to New York for
sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. Maxwell knew that the
evidence also included conduct in New Mexico.49 Furthermore,
Maxwell cannot demonstrate “substantial prejudice.” Maxwell
received—over three weeks before trial—notes of Jane’s interview
recording the abuse she suffered in New Mexico. This is enough to
conclude that Maxwell was not “unfairly and substantially”
prejudiced.50
5. Maxwell’s Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable
Lastly, Maxwell argues that her sentence was procedurally
unreasonable because the District Court erred in applying a leadership
sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and
inadequately explained its above-Guidelines sentence.51 We disagree.
unreasonable because the District Court erred in applying a leadership
sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and
inadequately explained its above-Guidelines sentence.51 We disagree.
_____________________
48 Dove, 884 F.3d at 149.
49 As the District Court found, “[t]he Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse
underage girls in New York. In service of this scheme, the Indictment alleged that Epstein
and the Defendant groomed the victims for abuse at various properties and in various
states, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico.” A-393.
underage girls in New York. In service of this scheme, the Indictment alleged that Epstein
and the Defendant groomed the victims for abuse at various properties and in various
states, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico.” A-393.
50 See United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (concluding that a defendant was
not “unfairly and substantially” prejudiced because “[t]he government disclosed the
evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial”).
not “unfairly and substantially” prejudiced because “[t]he government disclosed the
evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial”).
51 At sentencing, the District Court calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’
imprisonment and sentenced Maxwell to a slightly above-Guidelines term of 240 months’
imprisonment.
imprisonment and sentenced Maxwell to a slightly above-Guidelines term of 240 months’
imprisonment.
23
DOJ-OGR-00000024
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document