DOJ-OGR-00021064.jpg
631 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / appellate court filing
File Size:
631 KB
Summary
This document is a 'Statement of the Issues Presented for Review' from an appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023). It outlines four main legal arguments for appeal: the misapplication of a non-prosecution agreement, errors regarding statutes of limitations, juror misconduct involving concealed history of sexual abuse, and a constructive amendment of the indictment regarding venue (New Mexico vs. New York) and state law.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Appellant/Defendant |
Subject of the conviction being appealed (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell based on Case 22-1426).
|
| Juror | Juror |
Accused of making materially false statements during jury selection regarding past sexual abuse.
|
| Victims | Victims |
Referenced in relation to the juror's shared experience of abuse.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The court whose decisions are being appealed.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, referenced in case citation.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where sexual activity occurred related to Count 4.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the Penal Law cited.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"juror made materially false statements in jury selection that concealed that he had experienced the “exact same thing” as the victims"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021064.jpg
Quote #1
"impose limits on a non-prosecution agreement contrary to the agreement’s plain meaning"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021064.jpg
Quote #2
"constructive amendment and/or a variance from the Indictment"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021064.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,438 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page17 of 113
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Whether the District Court misapplied U.S. v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) to impose limits on a non-prosecution agreement contrary to the agreement’s plain meaning and endorsed its untenable interpretation without discovery or a hearing to determine the intent of the parties.
2. Whether the District Court erred in extending the statute of limitations for violations of §2423(a) and §1591 under §3283 and whether the 2003 amendment to §3283 or §3299 applies retroactively to offenses committed before enactment of these statutes.
3. Whether the court should have granted a new trial after it learned that a juror made materially false statements in jury selection that concealed that he had experienced the “exact same thing” as the victims, namely, childhood sexual abuse, because truthful answers given at the time of voir dire would have provided a valid basis for a cause challenge.
4. Whether the District Court erred in refusing to correct the jury’s misunderstanding (evident from a Jury Note) under Count 4 that sexual activity in New Mexico violated New York Penal Law §130.55), which caused the jury to convict Defendant solely based on evidence of sexual activity outside of New York, thereby constituting a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the Indictment.
2
DOJ-OGR-00021064
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document