DOJ-OGR-00010380.jpg
730 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
730 KB
Summary
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text analyzes legal factors regarding whether separate counts constitute a single conspiracy or multiple ones, specifically discussing location (New York/Florida), overt acts, and interdependence. It references specific victims (Carolyn, Jane, Annie) and the timeline of abuse (2001-2004) in relation to the enactment of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number), subject of the conspiracy analysis.
|
| Epstein | Co-conspirator |
Jeffrey Epstein, mentioned regarding intent to abuse victims and scheme.
|
| Carolyn | Victim |
Subject of abuse scheme from 2001 to 2004.
|
| Jane | Victim |
Mentioned regarding prior abuse.
|
| Annie | Victim |
Mentioned regarding prior abuse.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Argued the case regarding overt acts and conspiracy counts.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals providing legal instructions/precedent.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"shifting emphasis in the location of operations do[es] not necessarily require a finding of more than one conspiracy."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010380.jpg
Quote #1
"In other words, the success of the Defendant and Epstein’s scheme to abuse Carolyn from 2001 to 2004 was not made more or less likely by the prior success or failure to abuse Jane, Annie, or any other underage girl."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010380.jpg
Quote #2
"what was ultimately proven was one common conspiracy."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010380.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,175 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 14 of 45
sexual conduct outside of New York as relevant to Count Three because it tended to establish the
existence of a conspiracy and of the Defendant and Epstein’s intent to abuse the victims in New
York. In sum, the same locations—particularly Florida—were part of the Government’s case for
both counts. And over time, a conspiracy’s “shifting emphasis in the location of operations
do[es] not necessarily require a finding of more than one conspiracy.” Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 48
(quoting Jones, 482 F.3d at 72). This factor therefore favors the Defendant or, at least, is neutral.
existence of a conspiracy and of the Defendant and Epstein’s intent to abuse the victims in New
York. In sum, the same locations—particularly Florida—were part of the Government’s case for
both counts. And over time, a conspiracy’s “shifting emphasis in the location of operations
do[es] not necessarily require a finding of more than one conspiracy.” Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 48
(quoting Jones, 482 F.3d at 72). This factor therefore favors the Defendant or, at least, is neutral.
Common overt acts. The Government correctly notes that the overt acts provided to the
jury for Counts Three and Five are distinct. See Jury Charge, Dkt. No. 565 at 49–50. This factor
therefore tips toward the Government—but only slightly. A number of the overt acts listed for
Count Three could have been prosecuted under Count Five but for the fact that 18 U.S.C. § 1591,
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, was not enacted until 2000. See Gov. Br. at 28. That
some identical overt acts were not listed for both conspiracies is therefore more a function of
legal timing than an indication of two distinct conspiracies. Cf. Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226,
at *12.
jury for Counts Three and Five are distinct. See Jury Charge, Dkt. No. 565 at 49–50. This factor
therefore tips toward the Government—but only slightly. A number of the overt acts listed for
Count Three could have been prosecuted under Count Five but for the fact that 18 U.S.C. § 1591,
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, was not enacted until 2000. See Gov. Br. at 28. That
some identical overt acts were not listed for both conspiracies is therefore more a function of
legal timing than an indication of two distinct conspiracies. Cf. Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226,
at *12.
Interdependence. Counts Three and Five are not interdependent because the success or
failure of one conspiracy is independent of the success or failure of the other. See Macchia, 35
F.3d at 671. In other words, the success of the Defendant and Epstein’s scheme to abuse Carolyn
from 2001 to 2004 was not made more or less likely by the prior success or failure to abuse Jane,
Annie, or any other underage girl. This factor, however, makes little difference in the final
analysis if “what was ultimately proven was one common conspiracy.” Maslin, 356 F.3d at 197.
failure of one conspiracy is independent of the success or failure of the other. See Macchia, 35
F.3d at 671. In other words, the success of the Defendant and Epstein’s scheme to abuse Carolyn
from 2001 to 2004 was not made more or less likely by the prior success or failure to abuse Jane,
Annie, or any other underage girl. This factor, however, makes little difference in the final
analysis if “what was ultimately proven was one common conspiracy.” Maslin, 356 F.3d at 197.
The Government’s theory at trial. The Second Circuit has instructed district courts to
consider not only the enumerated Korfant factors but to consider the entire record. See id. at
196; United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271, 282 (2d Cir. 2006). In Maslin, the Second Circuit
consider not only the enumerated Korfant factors but to consider the entire record. See id. at
196; United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271, 282 (2d Cir. 2006). In Maslin, the Second Circuit
14
DOJ-OGR-00010380
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document