DOJ-OGR-00021873.jpg

383 KB

Extraction Summary

2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 383 KB
Summary

This document is a legal opinion from an appellate court, filed on October 20, 2022, which summarizes its reasons for affirming a lower District Court's judgment of conviction against Maxwell. The court found no error in the lower court's rulings, including that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement did not prevent Maxwell's prosecution and that her conviction and sentence were sound.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Epstein
Mentioned in relation to his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with USAO-SDFL.
Maxwell Defendant
The subject of the prosecution, conviction, and appeal being discussed in the document.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
District Court Judicial body
The lower court whose rulings and judgment of conviction are being affirmed.
USAO-SDFL Government agency
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which had a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Eps...
USAO-SDNY Government agency
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which prosecuted Maxwell.

Timeline (2 events)

2022-06-29
The District Court issued a judgment of conviction against Maxwell, which is being affirmed by the current document.
District Court
2022-10-20
An appellate court filed this document affirming the District Court's judgment of conviction against Maxwell.

Relationships (1)

Epstein Legal Maxwell
The document links them by discussing whether Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with USAO-SDFL should have barred Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY.

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (754 characters)

Case: 22-1426 Document: 109-1, 10/20/2022, 3665486, Page: 26 of 36
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-00021873

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document