DOJ-OGR-00020997.jpg
650 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal opinion / court order (excerpt from case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
File Size:
650 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal ruling (likely the Maxwell case, 1:20-cr-00330) discussing legal arguments regarding conspiracy counts, overt acts, and the interdependence of crimes. It analyzes whether the abuse of specific victims (Carolyn, Jane, Annie) constituted one common conspiracy or distinct conspiracies involving the Defendant and Epstein. The text references legal precedents and the timing of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act enactment in 2000.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Accused |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Discussed in relation to conspiracy and intent ...
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Co-conspirator |
Mentioned regarding 'Defendant and Epstein’s intent to abuse the victims' and their 'scheme to abuse Carolyn'.
|
| Carolyn | Victim |
Named as a victim of the scheme from 2001 to 2004.
|
| Jane | Victim |
Named as a victim; abuse mentioned in comparison to Carolyn.
|
| Annie | Victim |
Named as a victim; abuse mentioned in comparison to Carolyn.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Refers to the prosecution's case, arguments regarding overt acts, and theory at trial.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Referenced regarding instructions to district courts and legal precedents.
|
Relationships (4)
Text refers to 'Defendant and Epstein’s intent' and 'Defendant and Epstein’s scheme'.
Key Quotes (3)
"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-00020997.jpg
Quote #1
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020997.jpg
Quote #2
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020997.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,239 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page171 of 221
A-371
A-371
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN 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-00020997
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document