DOJ-OGR-00010268.jpg
436 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court filing (table of contents)
File Size:
436 KB
Summary
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 647) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The filing outlines arguments that the Court erred in its response to a jury note regarding intent requirements for Count Four and argues that the three conspiracy counts are multiplicitous because they stem from a single criminal scheme. It concludes with a request for the Court to grant Maxwell's other motions.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal motions mentioned in section III.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Referenced regarding errors in response to jury notes and declining supplemental instructions.
|
| The Jury | Fact Finder |
Sent a note (Exhibit #15) indicating misunderstanding of intent requirements.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US District Court |
Implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated by footer stamp)
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Motion argues the Court erred and should grant Ms. Maxwell's motions.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Court’s Response to the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15) Was Erroneous and Resulted in a Constructive Amendment/Variance"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010268.jpg
Quote #1
"The Jury Note Indicated that the Jury Misunderstood the Intent Requirement for Count Four"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010268.jpg
Quote #2
"All Three Conspiracy Counts Are Multiplicitous Because They Are Based on a Single Underlying Criminal Scheme"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010268.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,794 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. The Court’s Response to the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15) Was Erroneous and Resulted in a Constructive Amendment/Variance............................................................................. 1
A. The Jury Note Indicated that the Jury Misunderstood the Intent Requirement for Count Four...................................................................................................................................... 3
B. The Court Erred When It Declined to Give the Jury a Supplemental Instruction Clarifying the Intent Requirement for Count Four.............................................................. 7
II. All Three Conspiracy Counts Are Multiplicitous Because They Are Based on a Single Underlying Criminal Scheme. ........................................................................................................ 10
A. The Criminal Offenses Charged .................................................................................... 12
B. Overlap in Participants, Time, and Geographic Scope................................................. 14
C. Common Overt Acts ...................................................................................................... 16
D. Similarity of Operation, Common Objectives, and Degree of Interdependence .................................................................................................................................... 17
III. The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell’s Other Motions. ........................................................ 18
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................ 18
i
DOJ-OGR-00010268
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document