DOJ-OGR-00000141.tif
39.6 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / court order / report
File Size:
39.6 KB
Summary
This legal document discusses perjury charges against Maxwell, concluding that they are legally tenable but should be severed and tried separately from Mann Act counts to avoid undue prejudice. It references legal precedents and argues that Maxwell's statements in a civil case about sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations could have led to the discovery of other evidence or influenced the factfinder, thus supporting the perjury charges.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Contends that questions did not relate to sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations; her answers could have led to...
|
| Gaudin | Legal precedent |
Cited in reference to legal standards (515 U.S. at 522-23 and 509).
|
| Kross | Legal precedent |
Cited in reference to legal standards (14 F.3d at 753-54).
|
| Sampson | Legal precedent |
Cited in United States v. Sampson (898 F.3d 270, 281 (2d Cir. 2018)).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, jurisdiction for a cited case.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit, jurisdiction for a cited case.
|
|
| Government |
Prosecuting body in the case against Maxwell.
|
|
| Court |
The judicial body issuing the conclusions in this document.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Maxwell's contention regarding the scope of questions in a civil case related to sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations.
Relationships (2)
Maxwell contends... The Government may prevail...
may have permitted the plaintiff to locate other victims or witnesses who could have corroborated the plaintiff's testimony.
Key Quotes (2)
""invading the 'inviolable function of the jury' in our criminal justice system""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000141.tif
Quote #1
""defense raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined with a defendant's potential culpability, a judge cannot resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000141.tif
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,699 characters)
78a
2d 406, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at
522-23).
The charged statements do not fall within this
narrow exception. Maxwell contends that the questions
did not relate to the sex trafficking and sexual abuse
allegations at the center of the civil case, but that is
not the legal standard. The Government may prevail if
it proves that Maxwell's answers could have led to
the discovery of other evidence or could influence the
factfinder in the civil case. See Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509;
Kross, 14 F.3d at 753-54. At trial, a reasonable juror
could conclude that truthful answers to the questions
may have permitted the plaintiff to locate other
victims or witnesses who could have corroborated the
plaintiff's testimony. The factual disputes relating to
materiality are at least enough to preclude pretrial
resolution. In criminal cases, courts must guard
against "invading the 'inviolable function of the jury'
in our criminal justice system," and if the "defense
raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined
with a defendant's potential culpability, a judge cannot
resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion." United
States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 281 (2d Cir. 2018).
The Court concludes that the perjury charges are
legally tenable and appropriately presented to the jury.
V. The perjury charges must be severed and tried
separately
Although the perjury charges are legally tenable, the
Court concludes that the interests of justice require
severing those counts and trying them separately.
Trying the perjury counts together with the Mann Act
counts would require admitting evidence of other
acts likely to be unduly prejudicial. It would also risk
DOJ-OGR-00000141
2d 406, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at
522-23).
The charged statements do not fall within this
narrow exception. Maxwell contends that the questions
did not relate to the sex trafficking and sexual abuse
allegations at the center of the civil case, but that is
not the legal standard. The Government may prevail if
it proves that Maxwell's answers could have led to
the discovery of other evidence or could influence the
factfinder in the civil case. See Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509;
Kross, 14 F.3d at 753-54. At trial, a reasonable juror
could conclude that truthful answers to the questions
may have permitted the plaintiff to locate other
victims or witnesses who could have corroborated the
plaintiff's testimony. The factual disputes relating to
materiality are at least enough to preclude pretrial
resolution. In criminal cases, courts must guard
against "invading the 'inviolable function of the jury'
in our criminal justice system," and if the "defense
raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined
with a defendant's potential culpability, a judge cannot
resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion." United
States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 281 (2d Cir. 2018).
The Court concludes that the perjury charges are
legally tenable and appropriately presented to the jury.
V. The perjury charges must be severed and tried
separately
Although the perjury charges are legally tenable, the
Court concludes that the interests of justice require
severing those counts and trying them separately.
Trying the perjury counts together with the Mann Act
counts would require admitting evidence of other
acts likely to be unduly prejudicial. It would also risk
DOJ-OGR-00000141
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document