DOJ-OGR-00021142.jpg
578 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
578 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that Maxwell's conviction on Count Four (substantive transportation) was likely improper. The argument posits that the jury convicted her based on arranging a return flight for 'Jane' from New Mexico after the alleged sexual abuse had already occurred, and the Court's refusal to provide a clarifying instruction allowed this. This potential error also casts doubt on the validity of the conviction for a related conspiracy charge, Count Three.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Subject of conviction |
Mentioned as the individual convicted on Count Four and Count Three, whose role in arranging a flight is central to t...
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned as the person for whom Maxwell arranged a return flight from New Mexico.
|
| D'Amelio |
Mentioned in a legal case citation (D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419-21) used to support an argument.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the judicial body that refused to give the jury a supplemental instruction.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location from which Jane's return flight was arranged.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of the requirement to violate New York law for the conspiracy counts.
|
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,327 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page95 of 113
they found that Maxwell had some role in arranging Jane’s return flight from New Mexico, after the sexual abuse had already taken place, they could convict her on the substantive transportation count (Count Four), assuming that arranging the return flight was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four. Hence, the question in the Jury Note.
Thus, it was necessary for the Court to give the jury a supplemental instruction, as requested by the defense, to clarify the correct basis for conviction under Count Four. The Court’s refusal to do so allowed the jury to modify the essential elements of the charged offense and created a substantial likelihood that Maxwell was convicted of a crime other than the one alleged in the Indictment. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419-21.
Moreover, given the substantial likelihood that the jury convicted Maxwell on Count Four based on the New Mexico conduct, there is also a substantial likelihood that they improperly convicted her on the related conspiracy count (Count Three) based on the same conduct. The substantive transportation offense charged in Count Four was the object of the conspiracy charged in Count Three, and both conspiracy counts required an agreement to violate New York law.
80
DOJ-OGR-00021142
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document