DOJ-OGR-00009565.jpg

613 KB

Extraction Summary

2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal memorandum (government opposition to post-trial motions)
File Size: 613 KB
Summary

This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. It contains the 'Preliminary Statement' and 'Legal Standard' sections of the Government's opposition to the defendant's post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial. The text outlines the legal standards for Rule 29 (acquittal based on insufficient evidence) and Rule 33 (new trial in the interest of justice), citing various legal precedents.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Referred to as 'the defendant' in the text; identified via Case No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
The Government Prosecution
Submitting memorandum in opposition to defendant's motions.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Identified by case number suffix PAE and citation S.D.N.Y.
Department of Justice
Inferred from Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Cited in case law (2d Cir.).

Timeline (2 events)

2022-02-11
Defendant filed four post-trial motions.
S.D.N.Y.
Defendant
2022-02-25
Filing of Government's memorandum in opposition to defendant's post-trial motions.
S.D.N.Y.
The Government Defendant

Locations (1)

Location Context
Location of the legal proceedings.

Relationships (1)

The Government Adversarial/Legal Defendant
Government submits memorandum in opposition to defendant's motions.

Key Quotes (3)

"The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s four post-trial motions"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009565.jpg
Quote #1
"In reviewing a Rule 29 motion, the court ‘must view the evidence in a light that is most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the government.’"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009565.jpg
Quote #2
"A judgment of acquittal can be entered only if the evidence that the defendant committed the crime alleged is nonexistent or so meager that no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009565.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,727 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 51
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s four post-trial motions, dated February 11, 2022 (“Def. Mot.”) (Dkt. No. 599).
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court “must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). “In reviewing a Rule 29 motion, the court ‘must view the evidence in a light that is most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the government.’” United States v. Joseph, No. 20 Cr. 603 (PKC), 2022 WL 336975, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2022) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2014)). The court “must ‘defer to the jury’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, its choices between permissible inferences, and its assessment of the weight of the evidence.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 68 (2d Cir. 2006)). A conviction must be upheld “if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Peters, 843 F. App’x at 372; see also United States v. Cuti, 720 F.3d 453, 461 (2d Cir. 2013) (“A judgment of acquittal can be entered only if the evidence that the defendant committed the crime alleged is nonexistent or so meager that no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
Rule 33 provides, in relevant part, that “[u]pon the defendant’s motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
2
DOJ-OGR-00009565

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document