DOJ-OGR-00010274.jpg
757 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (argument regarding jury instructions)
File Size:
757 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022, arguing that the jury in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial had a fundamental misunderstanding of 'Count Four.' The defense argues that the jury asked if intent for sexual activity in New Mexico was sufficient for a conviction based on 'violation of New York law,' and asserts the Court failed to properly correct this misunderstanding.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the charges (Count Four); accused of transporting Jane for sexual activity.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Pseudonym for the individual transported to New Mexico for sexual activity.
|
| The Jury | Adjudicator |
Submitted a note asking for clarification on Count Four.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Jane was transported to/from and where sexual activity occurred.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the law cited in Count Four (violation of New York law).
|
Relationships (1)
Discussion of Maxwell knowingly transporting Jane for sexual activity.
Key Quotes (3)
"Any sexual activity that occurred in New Mexico could not, by definition, be a violation of New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010274.jpg
Quote #1
"The jury needed to be given a supplemental instruction clarifying that to convict under Count Four, they needed to find that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010274.jpg
Quote #2
"knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010274.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,262 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 24
Under the second element of Count Four, can the defendant be found guilty if the
defendant’s intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico and if
the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane’s return flight from New Mexico,
but not the flight to New Mexico?
defendant’s intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico and if
the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane’s return flight from New Mexico,
but not the flight to New Mexico?
Hence, the question posed by the Jury Note contained two parts. The jury wanted to know if it
was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four if it found (1) that Ms. Maxwell’s
intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, and (2) that Ms. Maxwell
assisted with Jane’s return flight from New Mexico, but not her flight to New Mexico. That is
the straightforward, common sense reading of the Jury Note.
was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four if it found (1) that Ms. Maxwell’s
intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, and (2) that Ms. Maxwell
assisted with Jane’s return flight from New Mexico, but not her flight to New Mexico. That is
the straightforward, common sense reading of the Jury Note.
The answer to the first part of the jury’s question is an unequivocal no. The jury
instruction for the second element of Count Four charged that the government had to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell “knowingly transported Jane in interstate
commerce with an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged
with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.” (Instr. No. 21 (emphasis added)). It was
therefore not sufficient to satisfy this element if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell intended for
Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico. Any sexual activity that occurred in New
Mexico could not, by definition, be a violation of New York law.
instruction for the second element of Count Four charged that the government had to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell “knowingly transported Jane in interstate
commerce with an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged
with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.” (Instr. No. 21 (emphasis added)). It was
therefore not sufficient to satisfy this element if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell intended for
Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico. Any sexual activity that occurred in New
Mexico could not, by definition, be a violation of New York law.
Accordingly, the Jury Note revealed that the jury had a fundamental misunderstanding of
the intent requirement under Count Four. The jury needed to be given a supplemental instruction
clarifying that to convict under Count Four, they needed to find that Ms. Maxwell intended for
Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York and that any sexual activity that occurred in New
Mexico, while it was potentially relevant evidence, could not have violated New York law. The
Court’s decision to simply refer the jury to the existing jury instruction for the second element of
Count Four did nothing to cure the misunderstanding because the jury already had those
instructions and was still evidently confused about the proof necessary to satisfy Count Four. As
the intent requirement under Count Four. The jury needed to be given a supplemental instruction
clarifying that to convict under Count Four, they needed to find that Ms. Maxwell intended for
Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York and that any sexual activity that occurred in New
Mexico, while it was potentially relevant evidence, could not have violated New York law. The
Court’s decision to simply refer the jury to the existing jury instruction for the second element of
Count Four did nothing to cure the misunderstanding because the jury already had those
instructions and was still evidently confused about the proof necessary to satisfy Count Four. As
4
DOJ-OGR-00010274
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document