DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
715 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
715 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a motion arguing to exclude evidence of an alleged rape committed by Mr. Epstein from the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The argument posits that such evidence is not part of the charged conspiracy (which is limited to securing "sexualized massages"), is highly inflammatory and unduly prejudicial, and would confuse the jury, leading to a conviction on an improper emotional basis. The document cites several legal precedents to support the exclusion of this evidence under Rule 403.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Breyer, J. | Judge |
Cited as the judge in the case United States v. Moccia.
|
| Mr. Epstein |
Alleged to have raped Accuser-1 and for whom "sexualized massages" were allegedly secured.
|
|
| Accuser-1 | Alleged Victim |
Allegedly raped by Mr. Epstein.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Accused of conspiring to entice or transport minors for Mr. Epstein, but not of conspiring for him to rape them.
|
| Moccia | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation United States v. Moccia.
|
| Midyett | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation United States v. Midyett.
|
| Livoti | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation United States v. Livoti.
|
| Abu-Jihaad | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation United States v. Abu-Jihaad.
|
| Roldan-Zapata | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation United States v. Roldan-Zapata.
|
| Stein | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation United States v. Stein.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases (United States v. Moccia, United States v. Midyett, etc.).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1.
Ms. Maxwell is accused of conspiring to entice or transport minors across state lines to secure “sexualized massages” for Mr. Epstein.
Relationships (2)
The document states Ms. Maxwell is accused of conspiring to entice or transport minors for Mr. Epstein to secure “sexualized massages”.
The document states, "The allegation that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1..."
Key Quotes (6)
"jury will convict for crimes other than those charged—or that, uncertain of guilt, it will convict anyway because a bad person deserves punishment."Source
— United States v. Moccia
(Quoted to argue against propensity evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
Quote #1
"Evidence shall be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is ‘more inflammatory than the charged crime.’"Source
— United States v. Livoti
(Quoted in the context of arguing that a rape allegation is more inflammatory than the charged conduct of arranging "sexualized massages".)
DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
Quote #2
"no more inflammatory than the charges alleged in the indictment"Source
— United States v. Abu-Jihaad
(Cited as a standard for admitting evidence under Rule 403.)
DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
Quote #3
"did not involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which [the defendant] was charged"Source
— United States v. Roldan-Zapata
(Cited as a reason for affirming the admission of evidence in a past case.)
DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
Quote #4
"sexualized massages"Source
— The document's author
(Used to describe the actual conduct charged in the case against Ms. Maxwell.)
DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
Quote #5
"risk that this evidence would confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and be used for an improper purpose"Source
— United States v. Stein
(Cited as the reason for excluding other-act evidence in a conspiracy case under Rule 403.)
DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,077 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 9
the “jury will convict for crimes other than those charged—or that, uncertain of guilt, it will convict anyway because a bad person deserves punishment.” See id. at 181 (quoting United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 63 (1st Cir. 1982) (Breyer, J.)) (discussing propensity evidence).
A rape allegation is also highly emotional and inflammatory, much more so than the actual conduct charged in this case (sexualized massages). “Evidence shall be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is ‘more inflammatory than the charged crime.’” United States v. Midyett, 603 F. Supp. 2d 450, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting United States v. Livoti, 196 F.3d 322, 326 (2d Cir. 1999)); cf. United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 133 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming admission of evidence under Rule 403 when it was “no more inflammatory than the charges alleged in the indictment”); United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990) (affirming admission of evidence that “did not involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which [the defendant] was charged”).
The allegation that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) will also confuse the issues at trial and mislead the jury. The indictment does not allege that Mr. Epstein raped Accuser-1. And Ms. Maxwell is not accused of conspiring to entice or transport minors across state lines so Mr. Epstein could allegedly rape them. Again, the alleged conspiracy in this case is limited to securing “sexualized massages” for Mr. Epstein. If jurors hear an allegation about an alleged rape by Mr. Epstein, that evidence will confuse and mislead them, in addition to suggesting that they convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper and highly emotional basis. See United States v. Stein, 521 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (excluding other-act evidence in a conspiracy case under Rule 403 because of the “risk that this evidence would confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and be used for an improper purpose”).
A rape allegation is also highly emotional and inflammatory, much more so than the actual conduct charged in this case (sexualized massages). “Evidence shall be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is ‘more inflammatory than the charged crime.’” United States v. Midyett, 603 F. Supp. 2d 450, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting United States v. Livoti, 196 F.3d 322, 326 (2d Cir. 1999)); cf. United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 133 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming admission of evidence under Rule 403 when it was “no more inflammatory than the charges alleged in the indictment”); United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990) (affirming admission of evidence that “did not involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which [the defendant] was charged”).
The allegation that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) will also confuse the issues at trial and mislead the jury. The indictment does not allege that Mr. Epstein raped Accuser-1. And Ms. Maxwell is not accused of conspiring to entice or transport minors across state lines so Mr. Epstein could allegedly rape them. Again, the alleged conspiracy in this case is limited to securing “sexualized massages” for Mr. Epstein. If jurors hear an allegation about an alleged rape by Mr. Epstein, that evidence will confuse and mislead them, in addition to suggesting that they convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper and highly emotional basis. See United States v. Stein, 521 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (excluding other-act evidence in a conspiracy case under Rule 403 because of the “risk that this evidence would confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and be used for an improper purpose”).
3
DOJ-OGR-00005762
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document