This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument concerning jury deliberations in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion focuses on whether Maxwell arranged flights for a victim named 'Jane' to or from New Mexico, whether such travel constitutes a crime under Count Four (corrected from Count Two), and the confusion surrounding a specific note sent by the jury regarding these hypothetical facts.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the discussion regarding whether she arranged flights to or from New Mexico and if that constitutes ground...
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness (Pseudonym) |
Mentioned in relation to travel to New Mexico and intent to engage in sexual activity.
|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney |
Speaker addressing the judge regarding the confusion surrounding a jury note.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by Ms. Moe.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Central location discussed regarding flights and alleged illegal activity.
|
"But they are now considering whether the flight out of New Mexico, if Ms. Maxwell had any -- did anything to do with that flight, with arranging that flight, could we convict her on that count alone."Source
"Because there is no, I think, evidence that she arranged the flight going to New Mexico"Source
"Count Four I should have said, not Count Two."Source
"That's not travel for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity."Source
"We are now guessing at what hypothetical facts the jury is talking about"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,699 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document