DOJ-OGR-00009579.jpg
686 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
686 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes a question posed by a jury during a trial. The core issue is whether sexual activity involving the defendant and a minor named Jane in New Mexico could be considered as evidence for a conviction on a charge related to transporting Jane to New York. The text argues that the jury's question is legally valid and references a prior statement by the Court from the trial transcript to support the relevance of the New Mexico events to the defendant's intent.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Victim/Witness (pseudonym) |
Mentioned in the context of alleged sexual activity and flights to and from New Mexico.
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal analysis, whose conviction is being discussed in relation to flights and sexual activity inv...
|
| defense counsel | Legal representative for the defendant |
Mentioned as having repeatedly raised a question to the Court during the trial.
|
| Court | Judicial authority |
Quoted from the trial transcript (Tr. 3149) regarding the relevance of sexual activity in New Mexico.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the trial, referenced in the trial transcript.
|
Timeline (4 events)
The legal proceedings (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) during which the jury posed a question and the Court made a statement.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
A location where sexual activity may have occurred, and the origin/destination of flights discussed in the case.
|
|
|
The destination of a return flight from New Mexico.
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses the defendant's intent for Jane, a minor under 17, to engage in sexual activity, and the transportation of Jane for this purpose, which forms the basis of the criminal charges.
The document mentions that the 'defense counsel' raised questions to the Court on behalf of the defendant during the trial.
Key Quotes (1)
"This is the same discussion we’ve had a couple of times [defense counsel]. Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this is the same basic discussion that we’ve had. So . . . I think the proposal made by the defense is wrong."Source
— Court
(A statement from the trial transcript (Tr. 3149) addressing the relevance of sexual activity in New Mexico to the charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00009579.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,057 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 17 of 51
That fact is compounded by the lack of clarity about where the jury believed the sexual activity occurred. It is not clear whether the flight on which the “intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity” references the flight to New Mexico, as the defendant suggests, or the return flight. If it is the flight to New Mexico, it would still be probative evidence on Count Two, albeit not sufficient for conviction. If it is a flight from New Mexico, it would also still be probative and would not pose any risk that the jury convicted based on conduct occurring in New Mexico. And if the jury thought that the defendant intended Jane to engage in sexual activity at the conclusion of a return flight from New Mexico to New York, it could well have been sufficient for conviction on Count Two.
The issue is further confused by the uncertainty about the question posed by the jury. The defendant understands the question to be about whether sexual activity in New Mexico is sufficient to find the defendant guilty. First, the jury’s question does not ask whether certain facts are sufficient for guilt; it asks whether the defendant “can” be found guilty” if a certain fact is true. The defendant “can” be found guilty based in part on sexual activity occurring in New Mexico, as described above. That is a perfectly sensible question for the jury to ask—indeed, it was repeatedly raised by defense counsel to the Court at trial. (See, e.g., Tr. 3149 (Court stating: “This is the same discussion we’ve had a couple of times [defense counsel]. Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this is the same basic discussion that we’ve had. So . . . I think the proposal made by the defense is wrong.”). And second, the question specifically uses the word “aided,” suggesting that the jury note may have been a question about
16
DOJ-OGR-00009579
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document