DOJ-OGR-00021018.jpg
628 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court order
File Size:
628 KB
Summary
This document is page 35 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the denial of the Defendant's arguments regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'prejudicial variance' related to Count Three (conspiracy to transport) and Count Four. The Court rules that testimony from a victim named 'Jane' regarding abuse in New Mexico did not improperly amend the charges, noting that evidence also involved victims 'Annie' and 'Carolyn'.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'The Defendant'; filing discusses her conviction and arguments regarding Counts Three and Four.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Testified regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico; central to the argument regarding constructive amendment.
|
| Annie | Victim |
Mentioned as a victim of the conspiracy in evidence presented by the Government.
|
| Carolyn | Victim |
Mentioned as a victim of the conspiracy in evidence presented by the Government.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN; writing the opinion/order.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
United States District Court (SDNY), issuing the ruling.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution (DOJ).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where 'Jane' testified she was sexually abused; subject of the legal argument regarding variance from the in...
|
Relationships (3)
Discussion of Jane's testimony regarding abuse by the Defendant.
Government presented evidence that Annie was a victim of the conspiracy.
Government presented evidence that Carolyn was a victim of the conspiracy.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Defendant’s argument as to constructive amendment of Count Three, conspiracy to transport, wholly depends on her theory as to Count Four."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021018.jpg
Quote #1
"Moreover, it is not substantially likely that the jury convicted the Defendant of Count Three on Jane’s New Mexico testimony alone."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021018.jpg
Quote #2
"Government presented evidence that Annie and Carolyn were also victims of the conspiracy."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021018.jpg
Quote #3
"In the alternative, the Defendant argues that she was substantially prejudiced because the Indictment did not contain any allegations that Jane was sexually abused in New Mexico."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021018.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,194 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page192 of 221
A-392
A-392
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 35 of 45
understanding. See D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 416. Accordingly, the Court concludes that no
constructive amendment resulted as to Count Four.
constructive amendment resulted as to Count Four.
3. No constructive amendment occurred as to Count Three.
The Defendant’s argument as to constructive amendment of Count Three, conspiracy to
transport, wholly depends on her theory as to Count Four.⁹ She argues that since it is “clear” that
the jury convicted the Defendant of Count Four based only on Jane’s New Mexico testimony, it
must have convicted on the same basis for the conspiracy counts. Maxwell Br. at 16. Because
no constructive amendment resulted as to Count Four, this argument is unavailing. But even if
the Court were persuaded that the jury note revealed that the jury convicted the Defendant of
Count Four on that basis, the note pertained only to Count Four and provided no basis to
speculate as to the jury’s conviction of Count Three. Moreover, it is not substantially likely that
the jury convicted the Defendant of Count Three on Jane’s New Mexico testimony alone. As
described in detail above in the Court’s denial of the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion, the
Government presented evidence that Annie and Carolyn were also victims of the conspiracy.
Accordingly, even if a constructive amendment resulted as to Count Four, vacatur would still not
be warranted as to Count Three.
transport, wholly depends on her theory as to Count Four.⁹ She argues that since it is “clear” that
the jury convicted the Defendant of Count Four based only on Jane’s New Mexico testimony, it
must have convicted on the same basis for the conspiracy counts. Maxwell Br. at 16. Because
no constructive amendment resulted as to Count Four, this argument is unavailing. But even if
the Court were persuaded that the jury note revealed that the jury convicted the Defendant of
Count Four on that basis, the note pertained only to Count Four and provided no basis to
speculate as to the jury’s conviction of Count Three. Moreover, it is not substantially likely that
the jury convicted the Defendant of Count Three on Jane’s New Mexico testimony alone. As
described in detail above in the Court’s denial of the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion, the
Government presented evidence that Annie and Carolyn were also victims of the conspiracy.
Accordingly, even if a constructive amendment resulted as to Count Four, vacatur would still not
be warranted as to Count Three.
C. No prejudicial variance occurred.
In the alternative, the Defendant argues that she was substantially prejudiced because the
Indictment did not contain any allegations that Jane was sexually abused in New Mexico. She
therefore claims she was unfairly surprised by its introduction. For purposes of this motion, the
Court will assume that Jane’s testimony regarding New Mexico constituted a variance from the
Indictment did not contain any allegations that Jane was sexually abused in New Mexico. She
therefore claims she was unfairly surprised by its introduction. For purposes of this motion, the
Court will assume that Jane’s testimony regarding New Mexico constituted a variance from the
________
⁹ As noted above, because the Court will not enter judgment on Count One on the parties’ consent, the Court
addresses only Count Three here. In any event, the Defendant’s arguments as to why Counts One and Three were
constructively amended are the same. See Maxwell Br. at 16.
⁹ As noted above, because the Court will not enter judgment on Count One on the parties’ consent, the Court
addresses only Count Three here. In any event, the Defendant’s arguments as to why Counts One and Three were
constructively amended are the same. See Maxwell Br. at 16.
35
DOJ-OGR-00021018
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document