DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg
639 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
639 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 75 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, presents arguments defending the conviction of Maxwell. It counters Maxwell's claims by stating the jury's verdict was plausible and not based on speculation, and that there was no variance between the indictment and the trial proof regarding events in New Mexico. The document asserts Maxwell had 'fair and adequate notice' of the charges, citing the government's disclosure of an interview with the victim, Jane, weeks before the trial.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Owner of a private jet and a home in New Mexico where alleged conduct occurred.
|
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal argument, accused of enticing and transporting Jane, and convicted by a jury.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Allegedly enticed and transported by Maxwell from New Mexico to New York for sexual abuse. Provided testimony and was...
|
| Salmonese |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 622 (2d Cir. 2003)'.
|
|
| Lebedev |
Named in the case citation 'See Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case against Maxwell, which produced evidence and proof at trial.
|
| United States | government |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Salmonese'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Maxwell's trial, where proof corresponded to the allegations in the Indictment.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Destination of a flight where Jane was allegedly transported by Maxwell.
|
|
|
Origin of a flight and location of Epstein's home where alleged conduct and sexual abuse occurred.
|
|
|
Location where conspiracies and conduct allegedly occurred.
|
Relationships (2)
Key Quotes (3)
"substantially likely"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg
Quote #1
"fair and adequate notice"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg
Quote #2
"[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial"Source
— Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54
(Quoted from a legal precedent to argue that the government's disclosure of evidence was sufficient and did not cause prejudice.)
DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,638 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page88 of 93
75
flown to New York on Epstein’s private jet, corroborat-
ing her testimony on that point. (See Br.79 (citing GX-
662-R at 44)). The same is true regarding Maxwell’s
comparison of Counts Two and Four: in Maxwell’s
view, the jury rejected nearly all of the evidence of
Maxwell’s enticement of Jane to New York for lack of
corroboration, and then convicted her based on an un-
supported speculative leap about arranging an uni-
dentified return flight from New Mexico. That is not
plausible, and it certainly is not a “substantially
likely” conclusion that can be drawn from an inscruta-
ble jury note.
ing her testimony on that point. (See Br.79 (citing GX-
662-R at 44)). The same is true regarding Maxwell’s
comparison of Counts Two and Four: in Maxwell’s
view, the jury rejected nearly all of the evidence of
Maxwell’s enticement of Jane to New York for lack of
corroboration, and then convicted her based on an un-
supported speculative leap about arranging an uni-
dentified return flight from New Mexico. That is not
plausible, and it certainly is not a “substantially
likely” conclusion that can be drawn from an inscruta-
ble jury note.
For similar reasons, no variance occurred. As dis-
cussed above, the proof at trial corresponded to the al-
legations in the Indictment, namely, evidence and ar-
gument that Maxwell enticed and transported Jane to
New York in order to facilitate sexual abuse there.
Maxwell was also well aware that the Government’s
proof would include conduct in New Mexico. (See
A.117, 121-22, 126). Maxwell therefore had “fair and
adequate notice” that the conspiracies included con-
duct at Epstein’s New Mexico home, which is all that
is required. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608,
622 (2d Cir. 2003). In any event, the Government pro-
duced on November 6, 2021—more than three weeks
before trial—notes from an interview with Jane de-
scribing sexual abuse in New Mexico. That is suffi-
cient. See Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 (rejecting a prejudice
argument in part because “[t]he government disclosed
the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial”).
cussed above, the proof at trial corresponded to the al-
legations in the Indictment, namely, evidence and ar-
gument that Maxwell enticed and transported Jane to
New York in order to facilitate sexual abuse there.
Maxwell was also well aware that the Government’s
proof would include conduct in New Mexico. (See
A.117, 121-22, 126). Maxwell therefore had “fair and
adequate notice” that the conspiracies included con-
duct at Epstein’s New Mexico home, which is all that
is required. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608,
622 (2d Cir. 2003). In any event, the Government pro-
duced on November 6, 2021—more than three weeks
before trial—notes from an interview with Jane de-
scribing sexual abuse in New Mexico. That is suffi-
cient. See Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 (rejecting a prejudice
argument in part because “[t]he government disclosed
the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial”).
DOJ-OGR-00021735
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document