DOJ-OGR-00021820.jpg
378 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
378 KB
Summary
This document is a legal ruling from an appellate court, dated September 17, 2024, which affirms the conviction of Maxwell. The court rejects several grounds for appeal, including that Epstein's prior non-prosecution agreement should have barred her prosecution and that her indictment was outside the statute of limitations. The ruling upholds the District Court's judgment of conviction from June 29, 2022.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judicial body |
The lower court whose judgment and decisions are being reviewed and affirmed in this document.
|
| USAO-SDFL | Government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which had a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)...
|
| USAO-SDNY | Government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which prosecuted Maxwell.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-06-29
The District Court's judgment of conviction for Maxwell was issued.
District Court
The District Court denied Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
District Court
Key Quotes (1)
"For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction."Source
— The Court
(The concluding sentence of the document, stating the final ruling to uphold the lower court's decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00021820.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (751 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page26 of 26
1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein's NPA with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY.
2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment was filed within the statute of limitations.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
4. The District Court's response to a jury note did not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment.
5. The District Court's sentence was procedurally reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
26
DOJ-OGR-00021820
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document