DOJ-OGR-00020852.jpg
636 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing (motion regarding jury instructions)
File Size:
636 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 27, 2021, during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the jury appears to be considering convicting Maxwell on Count Four based on events in New Mexico involving a victim named 'Jane,' whereas the indictment specified events in New York. The defense contends that allowing a conviction based on the New Mexico evidence would constitute a 'constructive amendment' or 'substantial variance' from the indictment, which would be a reversible legal error.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, recipient of the letter.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Referenced regarding her travel to/from New Mexico and New York, and alleged sexual abuse.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'Ms. Maxwell'; subject of potential conviction on Count Four.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US District Court |
Implied by Judge Nathan's title and Case number format.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution in the case (Department of Justice).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR-00020852).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-12-27
Defense submission to Judge Nathan regarding jury deliberations.
Court
Alison J. Nathan
Defense Counsel
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of Jane's travel and alleged sexual abuse, which the defense argues is outside the scope of Count Four.
|
|
|
Location mentioned in the indictment (Count Four) and where Jane traveled to from Florida.
|
|
|
Location from which Jane traveled to New York.
|
Relationships (1)
Document discusses alleged sexual abuse of Jane and Maxwell's potential conviction.
Key Quotes (4)
"Court Exhibit #15 indicates that the jury is considering a conviction on Count Four based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual abuse that purportedly took place in New Mexico."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020852.jpg
Quote #1
"Should the jury convict on this basis, it would be a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the express language of Count Four."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020852.jpg
Quote #2
"If the Court does not instruct the jury that they cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on the alleged events in New Mexico, it would permit the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell of an offense “other than that charged in the indictment”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020852.jpg
Quote #3
"A constructive amendment like this is per se reversible error without a showing of prejudice."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020852.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,172 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page26 of 221
A-226
A-226
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 4 of 7
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 27, 2021
Page 4
December 27, 2021
Page 4
Despite the government’s confidence, Court Exhibit #15 indicates that the jury is
considering a conviction on Count Four based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and
alleged sexual abuse that purportedly took place in New Mexico. Should the jury convict on this
basis, it would be a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the express language of Count
Four. Jane’s alleged travel from Florida to New York and the sex acts that she purportedly
engaged in there in violation of New York law are part of the “core of criminality” charged in
Count Four. See Wozniak, 126 F.3d at 109-111 (finding constructive amendment where
indictment charged a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, but the evidence at
trial focused on marijuana). A conviction based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and any
sexual activity that allegedly occurred while she was there would be premised on facts elicited at
trial that are “completely distinct” from the allegations in the indictment. Gross, 2017 WL
4685111, at *20. If the Court does not instruct the jury that they cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on
Count Four based on the alleged events in New Mexico, it would permit the jury to convict Ms.
Maxwell of an offense “other than that charged in the indictment” and constitute a constructive
amendment. Id. A constructive amendment like this is per se reversible error without a showing
of prejudice. United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 n.5 (2d Cir. 1998).
considering a conviction on Count Four based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and
alleged sexual abuse that purportedly took place in New Mexico. Should the jury convict on this
basis, it would be a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the express language of Count
Four. Jane’s alleged travel from Florida to New York and the sex acts that she purportedly
engaged in there in violation of New York law are part of the “core of criminality” charged in
Count Four. See Wozniak, 126 F.3d at 109-111 (finding constructive amendment where
indictment charged a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, but the evidence at
trial focused on marijuana). A conviction based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and any
sexual activity that allegedly occurred while she was there would be premised on facts elicited at
trial that are “completely distinct” from the allegations in the indictment. Gross, 2017 WL
4685111, at *20. If the Court does not instruct the jury that they cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on
Count Four based on the alleged events in New Mexico, it would permit the jury to convict Ms.
Maxwell of an offense “other than that charged in the indictment” and constitute a constructive
amendment. Id. A constructive amendment like this is per se reversible error without a showing
of prejudice. United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 n.5 (2d Cir. 1998).
At the very least, if the jury convicts Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on Jane’s alleged
sexual activity in New Mexico, it would be a substantial variance from the allegations in the S2
Indictment, which requires an intent that Jane travel to New York and violate New York law. The
Court should instruct the jury as requested below to prevent such a variance from occurring. Ms.
Maxwell has no burden to prove prejudice at this point since the variance can still be prevented by
sexual activity in New Mexico, it would be a substantial variance from the allegations in the S2
Indictment, which requires an intent that Jane travel to New York and violate New York law. The
Court should instruct the jury as requested below to prevent such a variance from occurring. Ms.
Maxwell has no burden to prove prejudice at this point since the variance can still be prevented by
2068538.1
DOJ-OGR-00020852
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document