DOJ-OGR-00010392.jpg
710 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae, united states v. ghislaine maxwell)
File Size:
710 KB
Summary
This document is page 26 of a court filing from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 29, 2022. It discusses specific jury instructions regarding witnesses 'Jane,' 'Kate,' and 'Annie,' clarifying jurisdictional boundaries (New York vs. New Mexico) and age of consent issues relative to New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The text explains that while testimony from Kate (who was over 17) and Annie (whose incidents occurred in NM) could not be used as the sole basis for conviction on specific counts, it was admissible to establish the Defendant's intent regarding the transport of minors.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on case number); subject of the trial and conviction discussions.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Was under 17, enticed to travel from Florida to New York for sexual abuse.
|
| Kate | Witness |
Testified about sexual activity, but instructions noted she was older than 17 at the time and thus not a victim for C...
|
| Annie | Witness |
Testified about sexual contact in New Mexico only; her testimony did not describe 'illegal sexual activity' as allege...
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority |
Gave limiting instructions to the jury regarding evidence.
|
| The Jury | Decision Maker |
Received instructions on how to weigh testimony regarding Kate and Annie.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-11-01
Trial Transcript reference regarding sexual contact with individuals under seventeen.
Courtroom
Unknown (Past)
Enticement and transport of Jane from Florida to New York for sexual abuse.
Florida to New York
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the Residence and the applicable Penal Law (Section 130.55).
|
|
|
Place where Jane was sexually abused.
|
|
|
Location from which Jane was enticed to travel.
|
|
|
Location where sexual contact with Annie occurred.
|
Relationships (3)
enticed to travel... for purposes of sexually abusing her
testimony about sexual activity... she was older than seventeen
testified about sexual contact in New Mexico
Key Quotes (4)
"Jane was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010392.jpg
Quote #1
"Kate could not be considered a victim of the crimes charged... because she was older than seventeen at the time of the events"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010392.jpg
Quote #2
"Annie, who testified about sexual contact in New Mexico only."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010392.jpg
Quote #3
"object of the charged conspiracies was transport with intent to engage in sexual conduct in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010392.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,097 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 26 of 45
when Jane was under the age of 17, Jane was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for
purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal
Law, Section 130.55.” Id. at 49.
purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal
Law, Section 130.55.” Id. at 49.
The Court also gave two limiting instructions to ensure that the jury’s consideration of
certain relevant evidence was properly focused on the core of criminality. These instructions
pertained to testimony about sexual activity that was not criminal conduct under New York Penal
Law Section 130.55. The first limiting instruction pertained to Kate. This instruction informed
the jury that it could not convict the Defendant on Counts One and Three solely on the basis of
Kate’s testimony because Kate could not be considered a victim of the crimes charged. Trial Tr.
at 1167–68. This was so because she was older than seventeen at the time of the events, and, as
explained, the object of the charged conspiracies was transport with intent to engage in sexual
conduct in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact
with individuals under the age of seventeen. See Nov. 1, 2021 Tr. at 67–68. The second limiting
instruction pertained to Annie, who testified about sexual contact in New Mexico only. The
instruction explained that her testimony about sexual conduct did not describe “illegal sexual
activity” as alleged in the Indictment, which was a legal term that the Court would explain at the
end of the case. Trial Tr. at 2048–49. This was so because, as explained, the object of the
charged conspiracies was a violation of New York law, not New Mexico law. Both limiting
instructions explained that the jury could determine that the testimony was relevant evidence.
That was so because such evidence tended to establish the Defendant’s intent that transport of a
minor victim to New York was for the purpose of sexual activity illegal under New York law.
The Defendant concedes this point as to testimony about sexual activity in states other than New
certain relevant evidence was properly focused on the core of criminality. These instructions
pertained to testimony about sexual activity that was not criminal conduct under New York Penal
Law Section 130.55. The first limiting instruction pertained to Kate. This instruction informed
the jury that it could not convict the Defendant on Counts One and Three solely on the basis of
Kate’s testimony because Kate could not be considered a victim of the crimes charged. Trial Tr.
at 1167–68. This was so because she was older than seventeen at the time of the events, and, as
explained, the object of the charged conspiracies was transport with intent to engage in sexual
conduct in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact
with individuals under the age of seventeen. See Nov. 1, 2021 Tr. at 67–68. The second limiting
instruction pertained to Annie, who testified about sexual contact in New Mexico only. The
instruction explained that her testimony about sexual conduct did not describe “illegal sexual
activity” as alleged in the Indictment, which was a legal term that the Court would explain at the
end of the case. Trial Tr. at 2048–49. This was so because, as explained, the object of the
charged conspiracies was a violation of New York law, not New Mexico law. Both limiting
instructions explained that the jury could determine that the testimony was relevant evidence.
That was so because such evidence tended to establish the Defendant’s intent that transport of a
minor victim to New York was for the purpose of sexual activity illegal under New York law.
The Defendant concedes this point as to testimony about sexual activity in states other than New
26
DOJ-OGR-00010392
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document