DOJ-OGR-00010276.jpg
771 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (defense reply)
File Size:
771 KB
Summary
This document is page 10 of a legal filing from March 2022 in the US v. Maxwell case. The defense argues that a Jury Note regarding Count Four indicates the jury was considering convicting Maxwell based on intent for sexual activity occurring in New Mexico, which the defense claims raises a 'constructive amendment' issue. The text disputes the government's interpretation of the note, accusing the government of inserting a comma to alter the meaning and downplay the jury's focus on New Mexico.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the jury's deliberations regarding Count Four and intent regarding sexual activity.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Person allegedly transported to/from New Mexico for sexual activity.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Argued that the Jury Note was ambiguous; accused by defense of altering text.
|
| The Jury | Adjudicator |
Sent a note asking clarifying questions about Count Four, intent, and location of activity.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of alleged sexual activity and destination/origin of flights involving Jane.
|
|
|
Mentioned as a potential flight destination.
|
Relationships (1)
Discussion of Maxwell assisting with Jane's travel for the purpose of sexual activity.
Key Quotes (4)
"The problem raised by the Jury Note related to the jury’s other question about Ms. Maxwell’s intent."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010276.jpg
Quote #1
"The jury was asking whether they could convict on Count Four if they found that Ms. Maxwell’s intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010276.jpg
Quote #2
"... the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity ..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010276.jpg
Quote #3
"We note that the government inserted a comma between 'New Mexico' and 'where/if,' which does not exist in the Jury Note."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010276.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,506 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 10 of 24
The government further argues that the Jury Note is ambiguous because it is not clear
which flights it refers to or where the jury believed the sexual activity occurred. (Opp. at 15-16).
The first point is irrelevant and the second is based on a disingenuous reading of the Jury Note.
As to the flights, it is true that one of the jury’s questions was whether it was sufficient to convict
under Count Four if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell assisted with Jane’s return trip from New
Mexico, but not her flight to New Mexico. But the problem raised by the Jury Note had nothing
to do with the specific flights the jury may have been referring to, or whether Jane was on those
flights, or whether those flights may have gone to New York. The problem raised by the Jury
Note related to the jury’s other question about Ms. Maxwell’s intent. The jury was asking
whether they could convict on Count Four if they found that Ms. Maxwell’s intent was for Jane
to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico. That was the question that raised the potential for a
constructive amendment. And contrary to the government’s assertion, the Jury Note was crystal
clear about where the jury believed the sexual activity occurred: New Mexico. See Court Exhibit
#15 (“... the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity
...”) (emphasis added)).2
which flights it refers to or where the jury believed the sexual activity occurred. (Opp. at 15-16).
The first point is irrelevant and the second is based on a disingenuous reading of the Jury Note.
As to the flights, it is true that one of the jury’s questions was whether it was sufficient to convict
under Count Four if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell assisted with Jane’s return trip from New
Mexico, but not her flight to New Mexico. But the problem raised by the Jury Note had nothing
to do with the specific flights the jury may have been referring to, or whether Jane was on those
flights, or whether those flights may have gone to New York. The problem raised by the Jury
Note related to the jury’s other question about Ms. Maxwell’s intent. The jury was asking
whether they could convict on Count Four if they found that Ms. Maxwell’s intent was for Jane
to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico. That was the question that raised the potential for a
constructive amendment. And contrary to the government’s assertion, the Jury Note was crystal
clear about where the jury believed the sexual activity occurred: New Mexico. See Court Exhibit
#15 (“... the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity
...”) (emphasis added)).2
Finally, the government attempts to cast further doubt on the clear meaning of the Jury
Note by altering its text. The government posits that the jury was asking whether Ms. Maxwell
could be found guilty based “in part” on sexual activity occurring in New Mexico. (Opp. at 16).
That is simply not what the Jury Note says. The jury could have easily asked that very question:
“Can Ms. Maxwell be found guilty on Count Four based in part on Jane’s testimony about sexual
abuse in New Mexico?” In fact, as the government points out, the jury had previously sent a
Note by altering its text. The government posits that the jury was asking whether Ms. Maxwell
could be found guilty based “in part” on sexual activity occurring in New Mexico. (Opp. at 16).
That is simply not what the Jury Note says. The jury could have easily asked that very question:
“Can Ms. Maxwell be found guilty on Count Four based in part on Jane’s testimony about sexual
abuse in New Mexico?” In fact, as the government points out, the jury had previously sent a
__________________________________________________________________
2 We note that the government inserted a comma between “New Mexico” and “where/if,” which does not exist in the
Jury Note. Compare Opp. at 13 (“... New Mexico, where/if ...”) with Court Exhibit #15 (“... New Mexico where/if
...”). The absence of a comma is significant to the analysis because it clarifies that the jury was focused on New
Mexico as the place where Ms. Maxwell intended Jane to engage in sexual activity.
2 We note that the government inserted a comma between “New Mexico” and “where/if,” which does not exist in the
Jury Note. Compare Opp. at 13 (“... New Mexico, where/if ...”) with Court Exhibit #15 (“... New Mexico where/if
...”). The absence of a comma is significant to the analysis because it clarifies that the jury was focused on New
Mexico as the place where Ms. Maxwell intended Jane to engage in sexual activity.
6
DOJ-OGR-00010276
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document