DOJ-OGR-00010376.jpg
722 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal decision
File Size:
722 KB
Summary
This page from a court order in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) analyzes 'Korfant factors' to determine if separate conspiracy counts constitute double jeopardy. The court discusses Sarah Kellen's role, noting she was involved in the Count Five conspiracy (2001-2004) but received little attention during the trial compared to other conspirators. The document also highlights the complete temporal overlap between Count Five and Count Three (1994-2004) and the similarity of operations regarding the grooming and sexual abuse of minors.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the Defendant' in the text (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE is United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text d...
|
| Sarah Kellen | Alleged Co-conspirator |
Named as part of the 'Count Five conspiracy' but not Count Three. Described as receiving less attention than other co...
|
| Dr. Lisa Rocchio | Expert Witness |
Called by the Government to identify typical steps in sexual abusers' grooming processes.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case filing header.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Indicated by the DOJ-OGR stamp in the footer.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in case law (2d Cir.).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (1)
Text discusses Kellen's inclusion in the 'Count Five conspiracy' alongside the Defendant.
Key Quotes (3)
"and sometimes Sarah Kellen would call, too"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010376.jpg
Quote #1
"Count Five’s period of 2001 to 2004 is 'wholly within the time frame' of Count Three from 1994 to 2004"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010376.jpg
Quote #2
"The methods by which the Defendant groomed and facilitated the sexual abuse of minor victims was a central focus of both parties’ cases at trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010376.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,099 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 45
roles played by those participants, significantly favors the Defendant as to the second Korfant
factor. See Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669; Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226, at *11.
factor. See Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669; Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226, at *11.
The Government responds that the Count Five conspiracy included Sarah Kellen, who
was not involved in Count Three. Yet Kellen received far less attention than other conspirators
in the Government’s case, being mentioned only briefly in the Government’s opening statement
and closing arguments. E.g., Trial Tr. at 2876 (noting, “and sometimes Sarah Kellen would call,
too”). Conspiracies often change membership without forming a new, distinct conspiracy,
particularly if key members of the conspiracy remain over the course of a decade. See United
States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25, 48 (2d Cir. 2008). Kellen’s participation beginning in 2001
therefore does not shift the import of the second Korfant factor.
was not involved in Count Three. Yet Kellen received far less attention than other conspirators
in the Government’s case, being mentioned only briefly in the Government’s opening statement
and closing arguments. E.g., Trial Tr. at 2876 (noting, “and sometimes Sarah Kellen would call,
too”). Conspiracies often change membership without forming a new, distinct conspiracy,
particularly if key members of the conspiracy remain over the course of a decade. See United
States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25, 48 (2d Cir. 2008). Kellen’s participation beginning in 2001
therefore does not shift the import of the second Korfant factor.
Overlap of time. The time periods of the two counts overlap completely. Namely, Count
Five’s period of 2001 to 2004 is “wholly within the time frame” of Count Three from 1994 to
2004, which substantially favors the Defendant on this Korfant factor. United States v.
Calderone, 982 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir. 1992). The Government’s attempt to minimize this factor
by noting that most overt acts for Count Three occurred in the 1990s is simply not reflected in
this circuit’s case law. See, e.g., Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669 (focusing on the overlap in time frame
alleged in the indictment). The overlap in time here raises the inference that one conspiracy
wholly encompasses the other, and that inference tips in the Defendant’s favor. See Araujo,
2018 WL 3222527, at *6.
Five’s period of 2001 to 2004 is “wholly within the time frame” of Count Three from 1994 to
2004, which substantially favors the Defendant on this Korfant factor. United States v.
Calderone, 982 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir. 1992). The Government’s attempt to minimize this factor
by noting that most overt acts for Count Three occurred in the 1990s is simply not reflected in
this circuit’s case law. See, e.g., Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669 (focusing on the overlap in time frame
alleged in the indictment). The overlap in time here raises the inference that one conspiracy
wholly encompasses the other, and that inference tips in the Defendant’s favor. See Araujo,
2018 WL 3222527, at *6.
Similarity of operations. Counts Three and Five involve significant similarities in
operations. The methods by which the Defendant groomed and facilitated the sexual abuse of
minor victims was a central focus of both parties’ cases at trial. The Government called as an
expert witness Dr. Lisa Rocchio, who identified the typical steps in sexual abusers’ grooming of
operations. The methods by which the Defendant groomed and facilitated the sexual abuse of
minor victims was a central focus of both parties’ cases at trial. The Government called as an
expert witness Dr. Lisa Rocchio, who identified the typical steps in sexual abusers’ grooming of
10
DOJ-OGR-00010376
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document