DOJ-OGR-00009573.jpg
669 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court document (legal filing/memorandum)
File Size:
669 KB
Summary
This page is from a Government legal filing (Document 621, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) arguing against a post-trial motion by the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government asserts that the jury did not improperly convict the defendant based solely on sexual abuse of a victim named 'Jane' in New Mexico, but rather followed instructions regarding violations of New York law. The text discusses jury instructions, the lack of New Mexico specific legal charges presented to the jury, and refutes the defense's claim of a constructive amendment or variance.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Accused |
Subject of the conviction and the motion being argued against (Ghislaine Maxwell based on Case 1:20-cr-00330).
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Testified about being sexually abused in New Mexico; pseudonym for a victim.
|
| The Jury | Fact Finder |
Convicted the defendant; subject of the argument regarding their basis for conviction.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Argued the case at trial; filing this document.
|
Timeline (3 events)
During Trial
Jane testified about being sexually abused in New Mexico.
Courtroom / concerning New Mexico
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Jane was allegedly transported to and sexually abused; location of Zorro Ranch.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the law the defendant was charged with violating.
|
Relationships (1)
Reference to transporting Jane to New Mexico with intent to engage in sexual activity; Jane's testimony of abuse.
Key Quotes (4)
"There is No Substantial Likelihood That The Jury Convicted The Defendant Solely Because Jane was Sexually Abused in New Mexico"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009573.jpg
Quote #1
"The defendant argues that a constructive amendment or variance occurred because the jury “improperly based their conviction solely on the sexual abuse that Jane experienced in New Mexico.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009573.jpg
Quote #2
"Similarly, the Court’s charge required the jury to decide whether the defendant intended to violate New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009573.jpg
Quote #3
"Ironically, it is the defendant who proposed instructing the jury on the relevant ages of consent in states other than New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009573.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,986 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 11 of 51
2. There is No Substantial Likelihood That The Jury Convicted The Defendant Solely Because Jane was Sexually Abused in New Mexico
The defendant argues that a constructive amendment or variance occurred because the jury “improperly based their conviction solely on the sexual abuse that Jane experienced in New Mexico.” (Def. Mot. at 13). That argument can be readily rejected. There is no likelihood—much less a substantial likelihood—that the jury disregarded the Court’s instructions and applied an unidentified New Mexico law to brief testimony about Jane’s abuse in New Mexico and convicted the defendant solely on that basis.
Neither the Government’s proof at trial nor the Court’s jury instructions provide a basis for that conclusion. At no point during the trial, including its summation, did the Government argue that the jury could convict on a theory that the defendant intended Jane to be abused in New Mexico.
Similarly, the Court’s charge required the jury to decide whether the defendant intended to violate New York law. The jury was not informed of the age of consent in New Mexico or any particular criminal statute in New Mexico. The defendant does not explain how the jury charge permitted the jury to convict the defendant for transporting Jane to New Mexico with the intent that she engage in sexual activity violative of some unidentified New Mexican criminal law.²
In support of her argument, the defendant relies on (1) the fact that Jane testified about being sexually abused in New Mexico, and (2) the jury note regarding New Mexico. (Id.) Neither
________________________
² Ironically, it is the defendant who proposed instructing the jury on the relevant ages of consent in states other than New York. (See Dkt. No. 410-1 at 51-52). Such an instruction would have provided the jury some state law to compare to the facts and determine whether it was violated,
10
² Ironically, it is the defendant who proposed instructing the jury on the relevant ages of consent in states other than New York. (See Dkt. No. 410-1 at 51-52). Such an instruction would have provided the jury some state law to compare to the facts and determine whether it was violated,
10
DOJ-OGR-00009573
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document