DOJ-OGR-00021050.jpg
665 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (appeal brief table of contents)
File Size:
665 KB
Summary
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii) from a legal appeal filed on February 28, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding the Statute of Limitations (Point II) and allegations that Juror No. 50 made false statements during voir dire, denying Ms. Maxwell a fair trial (Point III). The document specifically references the Mann Act, Section 3283, and the McDonough Test regarding juror bias.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the trial; claims she was deprived of a constitutional right to a fair trial.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Accused of making false statements during Voir Dire and depriving the defendant of an impartial jury.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress |
Referenced regarding the intent and authorization of Section 3283.
|
|
| District Court |
Referenced as having erred in applying Section 3283 retroactively.
|
|
| DOJ |
Implied by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Document claims Juror 50's false responses deprived Maxwell of a fair trial.
Key Quotes (4)
"ALL COUNTS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021050.jpg
Quote #1
"DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY BECAUSE A JUROR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS IN VOIR DIRE"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021050.jpg
Quote #2
"Juror No. 50’s False Responses Deprived Ms. Maxwell of her Constitutional Right to a Trial by an Impartial Jury"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021050.jpg
Quote #3
"The District Court erred in applying § 3283 retroactively"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021050.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,257 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page3 of 113
D. All counts fall within the scope of the NPA and must be dismissed ....................................................................................40
POINT II
ALL COUNTS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................41
A. Section 3283 Does Not Apply to the Mann Act Violations (Counts Three and Four) ........................................................43
B. The District Court erred in applying § 3283 retroactively ....................................................................................................52
1. Congress evinced an intent that § 3283 operate only prospectively................................................................................54
2. The District Court’s application of § 3283 creates “impermissible retroactive effects” without authorization from Congress .............................................58
C. Count Six is also barred by the Statute of Limitations ...........62
POINT III
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY BECAUSE A JUROR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS IN VOIR DIRE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS THAT, IF KNOWN, WOULD HAVE PROVIDED A VALID BASIS TO REMOVE HIM FOR CAUSE. U.S. Const. amend. VI ...............................................................................63
A. Introduction .......................................................................................63
B. Applicable Law ...................................................................................64
C. Juror No. 50’s False Responses Deprived Ms. Maxwell of her Constitutional Right to a Trial by an Impartial Jury ...........................................................................................................65
1. Juror 50 Did Not Truthfully Answer Material Questions During Voir Dire ...........................................................65
D. Under the McDonough Test, Juror 50’s Actual, Implied and Inferred Bias was established...........................................................66
1. The McDonough Test: The First Prong..........................................66
ii
DOJ-OGR-00021050
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document