DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
676 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
0
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
676 KB
Summary
This legal document excerpt from a court case details a judge's decision to reject a jury instruction proposed by the defendant, Maxwell. Judge Nathan ruled that Maxwell's requested instruction was incorrect, explaining that alleged sexual activity with the victim, Jane, in New Mexico could be relevant to proving intent for the charges under New York law. The judge ultimately decided to redirect the jury back to the original charge rather than adopt the defense's proposed language.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned as the subject of testimony regarding abuse in New Mexico and transport to New York for sexual activity.
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as having asked for a specific jury instruction, which was rejected by the judge.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge who rejected Maxwell's request for a jury instruction and provided her own reasoning and instr...
|
Timeline (3 events)
A discussion during a trial regarding a request by the defendant, Maxwell, for a specific jury instruction, which was ultimately rejected by Judge Nathan.
Courtroom
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Jane was allegedly abused, and the relevance of this activity to the charges was debated.
|
|
|
Location relevant to the charges, specifically the intent to transport Jane there for sexual activity and the applica...
|
Relationships (2)
Judge Nathan is the presiding judge in Maxwell's case and is shown rejecting a legal request made by Maxwell's defense.
Key Quotes (6)
"[a]n intent that Jane engage in sexual activity in any state other than New York cannot form the basis of these two elements of Counts Two and Four."Source
— Maxwell (via requested jury instruction)
(A proposed addition to the jury instructions requested by Maxwell's defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
Quote #1
"just wrong"Source
— Judge Nathan
(Judge Nathan's description of the final sentence in Maxwell's proposed jury instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
Quote #2
"This is the same discussion we’ve had a couple of times . . . . 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 . . ."Source
— Judge Nathan
(The judge's explanation for rejecting Maxwell's request, stating the relevance of events in New Mexico to the charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
Quote #3
"not know how to parse the jury’s question exactly,"Source
— Judge Nathan
(The judge expressing uncertainty about the jury's specific question.)
DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
Quote #4
"it’s a violation of New York penal law that’s charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they’re considering."Source
— Judge Nathan
(A reminder included in the judge's instruction to the jury, clarifying the applicable law.)
DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
Quote #5
"I have no idea if that’s what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings,"Source
— Judge Nathan
(The judge further explaining her uncertainty about the jury's query before concluding the defense's proposed instruction was incorrect.)
DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,766 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page82 of 93
69
the jury might convict based on Jane’s testimony that
she was abused in New Mexico. (A.224-25). Maxwell
asked Judge Nathan to instruct the jury as to the in-
tent elements of Counts Two and Four, and add that
“[a]n intent that Jane engage in sexual activity in any
state other than New York cannot form the basis of
these two elements of Counts Two and Four.” (A.229).
she was abused in New Mexico. (A.224-25). Maxwell
asked Judge Nathan to instruct the jury as to the in-
tent elements of Counts Two and Four, and add that
“[a]n intent that Jane engage in sexual activity in any
state other than New York cannot form the basis of
these two elements of Counts Two and Four.” (A.229).
Judge Nathan rejected Maxwell’s request both be-
cause the jury did not inquire about Count Two and
because the final sentence as “just wrong” in suggest-
ing that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity
outside of New York “may have no relevance.”
(Tr.3149). As Judge Nathan explained, “This is the
same discussion we’ve had a couple of times . . . . Sex-
ual 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 . . .” (Tr.3149-50). Judge Nathan repeated that
she did “not know how to parse the jury’s question ex-
actly,” but that her instruction directing the jury to the
original charge included a reminder that “it’s a viola-
tion of New York penal law that’s charged and is the
illegal sexual activity that they’re considering.”
(Tr.3150). Judge Nathan also pointed out that Max-
well did not “seek to exclude” Jane’s testimony about
New Mexico, or “seek a limiting instruction with re-
spect to that testimony.” (Tr.3153). Judge Nathan
added “I have no idea if that’s what the jury is asking
or many other plausible readings,” noted that the de-
fense had proposed an “incorrect” instruction, and con-
cluded no more was required than sending the jury
“back to the charge.” (Tr.3154).
cause the jury did not inquire about Count Two and
because the final sentence as “just wrong” in suggest-
ing that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity
outside of New York “may have no relevance.”
(Tr.3149). As Judge Nathan explained, “This is the
same discussion we’ve had a couple of times . . . . Sex-
ual 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 . . .” (Tr.3149-50). Judge Nathan repeated that
she did “not know how to parse the jury’s question ex-
actly,” but that her instruction directing the jury to the
original charge included a reminder that “it’s a viola-
tion of New York penal law that’s charged and is the
illegal sexual activity that they’re considering.”
(Tr.3150). Judge Nathan also pointed out that Max-
well did not “seek to exclude” Jane’s testimony about
New Mexico, or “seek a limiting instruction with re-
spect to that testimony.” (Tr.3153). Judge Nathan
added “I have no idea if that’s what the jury is asking
or many other plausible readings,” noted that the de-
fense had proposed an “incorrect” instruction, and con-
cluded no more was required than sending the jury
“back to the charge.” (Tr.3154).
DOJ-OGR-00021729
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document