DOJ-OGR-00008508.jpg
582 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
582 KB
Summary
This document is page 52 of a legal filing from December 17, 2021, in the case against Ms. Maxwell. It contains jury instructions regarding the legal definition and requirements for proving an "overt act" as part of a conspiracy. The instructions clarify that the government does not need to prove Maxwell herself committed the act, that the act does not have to be one specifically listed in the indictment, and that a conviction on certain counts cannot be based solely on the testimony of a witness named Kate.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Employer |
Mentioned as the employer of Carolyn.
|
| Carolyn | Employee of Epstein |
An employee of Epstein who was called to schedule appointments.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the case, mentioned in the context of whether she needed to have personally committed an overt act.
|
| Kate | Witness |
A witness whose testimony alone is insufficient to convict the Defendant on Counts One or Three for an overt act invo...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the legal case, responsible for proving the elements of the crime.
|
Relationships (3)
The document outlines the Government's burden of proof against Ms. Maxwell, the Defendant.
Kate is described as a witness whose testimony is being used by the Government in its case.
Key Quotes (1)
"Put simply: you may not convict the Defendant on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate's testimony or an overt act involving Kate."Source
— Court (Jury Instructions)
(Instructing the jury on the limitations of using witness Kate's testimony for conviction on specific counts.)
DOJ-OGR-00008508.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,651 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 562 Filed 12/17/21 Page 52 of 82
1 about April of 2004 and May of 2004 another employee of Epstein's called Carolyn to schedule
2 such appointments.
3 In order for the Government to satisfy this element, it is not necessary for the
4 Government to prove that Ms. Maxwell committed the overt act. It is sufficient for the
5 Government to show that any of the members of the conspiracy knowingly committed some
6 overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Further, the overt act need not be one that is alleged in
7 the Indictment. Rather, it can be any overt act that is substantially similar to those acts alleged in
8 the Indictment, if you are convinced that the act occurred while the conspiracy was still in
9 existence and that it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in the Indictment. In
10 addition, you need not be unanimous as to which overt act you find to have been committed. It
11 is sufficient as long as all of you find that at least one overt act was committed by one of the
12 conspirators.
13 As to Counts One and Three, the Government has to prove that least one of the overt acts
14 in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a witness other than Kate. Put simply: you may not
15 convict the Defendant on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate's testimony or an
16 overt act involving Kate.
17 You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely
18 the time alleged in the Indictment. It is sufficient if you are convinced beyond a reasonable
19 doubt, that it occurred at or about the time and place stated.
20
2 such appointments.
3 In order for the Government to satisfy this element, it is not necessary for the
4 Government to prove that Ms. Maxwell committed the overt act. It is sufficient for the
5 Government to show that any of the members of the conspiracy knowingly committed some
6 overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Further, the overt act need not be one that is alleged in
7 the Indictment. Rather, it can be any overt act that is substantially similar to those acts alleged in
8 the Indictment, if you are convinced that the act occurred while the conspiracy was still in
9 existence and that it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in the Indictment. In
10 addition, you need not be unanimous as to which overt act you find to have been committed. It
11 is sufficient as long as all of you find that at least one overt act was committed by one of the
12 conspirators.
13 As to Counts One and Three, the Government has to prove that least one of the overt acts
14 in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a witness other than Kate. Put simply: you may not
15 convict the Defendant on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate's testimony or an
16 overt act involving Kate.
17 You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely
18 the time alleged in the Indictment. It is sufficient if you are convinced beyond a reasonable
19 doubt, that it occurred at or about the time and place stated.
20
51
DOJ-OGR-00008508
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document