DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg
709 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
0
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
709 KB
Summary
This legal document presents the defendant's speculation on a jury's split verdict, arguing that the conviction was based on a trip to New Mexico. The defense contends the jury acquitted on an enticement charge because flight logs, while placing the defendant on the trip, offered no proof she induced the victim, 'Jane', to go. The document contrasts this with a trip to New York, where Jane's testimony was corroborated by a flight record, and discusses the lack of evidence regarding the defendant's involvement in Jane's return travel from New Mexico.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the owner of the private jet Jane was flown on to New York.
|
|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
A key individual whose testimony and travel to New Mexico and New York are central to the legal arguments discussed i...
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in relation to her interactions with Jane, specifically regarding a flight to New Mexico and a potential ro...
|
Timeline (3 events)
A trip to New Mexico involving Jane and the defendant. Flight logs showed the defendant was present.
New Mexico
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Destination of a flight Jane took on Epstein's private jet. Also mentioned in the context of Jane's testimony about t...
|
|
|
Destination of a trip involving Jane and the defendant. The evidence and testimony related to this trip are a major s...
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses whether Ms. Maxwell persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced Jane to travel to New Mexico and whether Maxwell had a role in arranging Jane's return flight. It also notes Jane did not testify about any interaction with Maxwell prior to the flight.
Key Quotes (5)
"she was present on the trip [to New Mexico] but said nothing about whether she ‘persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced’ Jane to take the trip."Source
— The defendant
(Part of the defendant's argument explaining why the jury acquitted on the charge of enticement, based on what flight logs showed.)
DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg
Quote #1
"found that Ms. Maxwell had some role in arranging Jane’s return flight from New Mexico"Source
— The defendant (suggesting the jury's reasoning)
(The defendant's suggestion for why the jury convicted, believing they found this level of involvement to be sufficient.)
DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg
Quote #2
"going somewhere away from . . . New Mexico"Source
— defense
(A reference from the trial transcript where the defense described Jane's return flight from New Mexico.)
DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg
Quote #3
"some other flight besides the flight to New Mexico"Source
— defense
(Another reference from the trial transcript where the defense described Jane's return flight.)
DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg
Quote #4
"critical difference"Source
— The defendant
(Used by the defendant to describe the difference between the New York and New Mexico trips, specifically that the defendant was listed as a passenger on the latter but not the former.)
DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,110 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 51
flown to New York on Epstein’s private jet (see Def. Mot. at 14 (citing GX-662-R at 44)), but
would have accepted her much briefer and less detailed testimony about abuse in New Mexico
solely because it was corroborated by a flight record.³
would have accepted her much briefer and less detailed testimony about abuse in New Mexico
solely because it was corroborated by a flight record.³
The defendant also speculates that the jury then decided to acquit the defendant on Count
Two but not on Count Four because the jury convicted based on the evidence related to the New
Mexico trip. Specifically, the defendant argues that the jury acquitted the defendant of enticement
because the flight logs showed that “she was present on the trip [to New Mexico] but said nothing
about whether she ‘persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced’ Jane to take the trip. Indeed, Jane did
not testify about having any interaction with Ms. Maxwell prior to the flight to New Mexico in
which they discussed the trip.” (Def. Mot. at 15). In contrast, the defendant suggests that the jury
must have “found that Ms. Maxwell had some role in arranging Jane’s return flight from New
Mexico,” which they took to be sufficient. But there is no specific evidence—not a flight record,
and not in Jane’s testimony—of how and to where Jane returned from that particular New Mexico
trip, much less that the defendant participated in or made Jane’s travel arrangements. (See Tr.
3129-30 (defense referring to the return flight as “going somewhere away from . . . New Mexico”
and as “some other flight besides the flight to New Mexico”)). In the defendant’s view, the jury
rejected nearly all of the evidence relating to Jane for lack of corroboration, and then convicted the
Two but not on Count Four because the jury convicted based on the evidence related to the New
Mexico trip. Specifically, the defendant argues that the jury acquitted the defendant of enticement
because the flight logs showed that “she was present on the trip [to New Mexico] but said nothing
about whether she ‘persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced’ Jane to take the trip. Indeed, Jane did
not testify about having any interaction with Ms. Maxwell prior to the flight to New Mexico in
which they discussed the trip.” (Def. Mot. at 15). In contrast, the defendant suggests that the jury
must have “found that Ms. Maxwell had some role in arranging Jane’s return flight from New
Mexico,” which they took to be sufficient. But there is no specific evidence—not a flight record,
and not in Jane’s testimony—of how and to where Jane returned from that particular New Mexico
trip, much less that the defendant participated in or made Jane’s travel arrangements. (See Tr.
3129-30 (defense referring to the return flight as “going somewhere away from . . . New Mexico”
and as “some other flight besides the flight to New Mexico”)). In the defendant’s view, the jury
rejected nearly all of the evidence relating to Jane for lack of corroboration, and then convicted the
_____________________
³ The defendant says that the “critical difference” between those trips is that the defendant was not
listed as a passenger on the trip to New York but is listed on the second trip to New Mexico. (Def.
Mot. at 14). That difference, however, says nothing about whether the jury required a
corroborative flight record before crediting Jane’s account of travel to and abuse in New York or
New Mexico.
listed as a passenger on the trip to New York but is listed on the second trip to New Mexico. (Def.
Mot. at 14). That difference, however, says nothing about whether the jury required a
corroborative flight record before crediting Jane’s account of travel to and abuse in New York or
New Mexico.
18
DOJ-OGR-00009581
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document