DOJ-OGR-00009583.jpg
705 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion
File Size:
705 KB
Summary
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text contains legal analysis rejecting the defendant's argument that the Court's response to a jury note constructively amended the indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Jones, Lebedev, Muraca) to support the Court's discretion in handling jury inquiries and instructions.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE context), arguing that the Court's response to a jury no...
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
The entity issuing the instructions and response to the jury note.
|
| Jones | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited case (Jones, 847 F. App’x at 30) regarding constructive amendment in a sex trafficking case.
|
| Lebedev | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited case (Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54) regarding conspiracy instructions.
|
| Muraca | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited case (United States v. Muraca) regarding trial court discretion.
|
| Gross | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited case (Gross, 2017 WL 4685111) regarding the high bar for proving constructive amendment.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case filing header.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedent.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-02-25
Relationships (1)
Defendant argues the Court's response was an error; Court is ruling on the argument.
Key Quotes (3)
"almost invariable assumption of the law . . . that jurors follow their instructions"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009583.jpg
Quote #1
"the Court’s response did not constructively amend the S2 Indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009583.jpg
Quote #2
"the defendant must surmount the high bar of showing that... the Court’s response to the jury note 'so modif[ied] essential elements of the offense that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009583.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,097 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 21 of 51
“almost invariable assumption of the law . . . that jurors follow their instructions”). Accordingly,
even if the jury note suggests some confusion, the Court’s response did not constructively amend
the S2 Indictment. See Jones, 847 F. App’x at 30 (finding no constructive amendment in a sex
trafficking case where the indictment did not contain the verb “advertise” but the evidence included
evidence of advertising and the Court mistakenly used that verb in parts of the instructions, because
the advertising evidence “fell squarely within the charged scheme” and the Court otherwise
correctly instructed the jury); Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 (“The jury instructions described a
conspiracy substantially the same as the one charged in the indictment.”).
even if the jury note suggests some confusion, the Court’s response did not constructively amend
the S2 Indictment. See Jones, 847 F. App’x at 30 (finding no constructive amendment in a sex
trafficking case where the indictment did not contain the verb “advertise” but the evidence included
evidence of advertising and the Court mistakenly used that verb in parts of the instructions, because
the advertising evidence “fell squarely within the charged scheme” and the Court otherwise
correctly instructed the jury); Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 (“The jury instructions described a
conspiracy substantially the same as the one charged in the indictment.”).
Third, the defendant’s argument is better framed as a challenge to the Court’s response to
the jury note or a challenge to the jury instructions in the form of a constructive amendment
argument. See, e.g., United States v. Muraca, 803 F. Appx’ 545, 546 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[T]he trial
court enjoys considerable discretion construing the scope of a jury inquiry and in framing a
response tailored to the inquiry,” and “If a supplemental charge is legally correct, the district court
enjoys broad discretion in determining how, and under what circumstances, that charge will be
given.”). Rather than challenge what she takes to be an error, however, the defendant argues
instead that the Court’s response to the jury note worked a constructive amendment. In so doing,
the defendant must surmount the high bar of showing that, notwithstanding the focus of the trial
evidence, the Court’s limiting instructions at trial, and the Court’s jury instructions taken as a
whole, the Court’s response to the jury note “so modif[ied] essential elements of the offense that
there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other
than that charged in the indictment.” Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *20. The original instructions
the jury note or a challenge to the jury instructions in the form of a constructive amendment
argument. See, e.g., United States v. Muraca, 803 F. Appx’ 545, 546 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[T]he trial
court enjoys considerable discretion construing the scope of a jury inquiry and in framing a
response tailored to the inquiry,” and “If a supplemental charge is legally correct, the district court
enjoys broad discretion in determining how, and under what circumstances, that charge will be
given.”). Rather than challenge what she takes to be an error, however, the defendant argues
instead that the Court’s response to the jury note worked a constructive amendment. In so doing,
the defendant must surmount the high bar of showing that, notwithstanding the focus of the trial
evidence, the Court’s limiting instructions at trial, and the Court’s jury instructions taken as a
whole, the Court’s response to the jury note “so modif[ied] essential elements of the offense that
there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other
than that charged in the indictment.” Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *20. The original instructions
20
DOJ-OGR-00009583
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document