DOJ-OGR-00020853.jpg
630 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing (letter motion)
File Size:
630 KB
Summary
This document is page 5 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021, regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Court's response to a jury note was incorrect and prejudicial, citing Second Circuit case law regarding the importance of accurate instructions during jury deliberations. A footnote clarifies the defense's position on the jurisdictional requirements of the conspiracy counts, specifically regarding intent and the location of sexual activity (New York) involving individuals under 17.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Addressee of the legal correspondence; The Honorable
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal defense; arguments are made that instructions were prejudicial to her
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Cited in legal precedents (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated by footer stamp DOJ-OGR
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-12-27
Submission of legal arguments regarding jury instructions during deliberations.
Court (Southern District of New York implied)
Unknown
Jury interruption of deliberations to seek explanation of the law (referenced in argument).
Courtroom
Jury
The Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in case law citations (Hudson v. New York City) and in the footnote regarding state statutes.
|
Relationships (1)
The document is written by counsel ('we believe') advocating on behalf of 'Ms. Maxwell'.
Key Quotes (3)
"Second, we believe that the Court’s response to the jury note was substantively incorrect and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020853.jpg
Quote #1
"Reversal is “required where, based on a review of the record as a whole, the error was prejudicial or the charge was highly confusing.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020853.jpg
Quote #2
"the jury cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on those counts without finding that she acted with the intent that someone under the age of 17 would engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020853.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,255 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page27 of 221
A-227
A-227
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 5 of 7
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 27, 2021
Page 5
December 27, 2021
Page 5
a curative instruction. Moreover, because the same issues arise with respect to the substantive
enticement offense charged in Count Two, the Court must give the same instruction as to Count
Two as well.¹
enticement offense charged in Count Two, the Court must give the same instruction as to Count
Two as well.¹
Supplemental Jury Instruction
Second, we believe that the Court’s response to the jury note was substantively incorrect
and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. “A jury’s interruption of its deliberations ‘to seek further
explanation of the law’ is a ‘critical moment in a criminal trial’; and [the Second Circuit] therefore
ascribe[s] ‘crucial importance’ to a ‘completely accurate statement by the judge’ at that moment.”
United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lefkowitz,
284 F.2d 310, 314 (2d Cir. 1960)). “Instructions are erroneous if they mislead the jury as to the
correct legal standard or do not adequately inform the jury of the law.” Hudson v. New York City,
271 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2001). Reversal is “required where, based on a review of the record as a
whole, the error was prejudicial or the charge was highly confusing.” Kopstein, 759 F.3d at 172;
see also id. (“A charge that appears likely to have left the jury ‘highly confused’ may, on that
ground alone, be reversed.” (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. One 25,900 Square Foot More
or Less Parcel of Land, 766 F.2d 685, 688 (2d Cir. 1985) (“A charge that appears likely to have
left the jury ‘highly confused’ may, on that ground alone, be reversed.”))). “Even if an initial
and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. “A jury’s interruption of its deliberations ‘to seek further
explanation of the law’ is a ‘critical moment in a criminal trial’; and [the Second Circuit] therefore
ascribe[s] ‘crucial importance’ to a ‘completely accurate statement by the judge’ at that moment.”
United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lefkowitz,
284 F.2d 310, 314 (2d Cir. 1960)). “Instructions are erroneous if they mislead the jury as to the
correct legal standard or do not adequately inform the jury of the law.” Hudson v. New York City,
271 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2001). Reversal is “required where, based on a review of the record as a
whole, the error was prejudicial or the charge was highly confusing.” Kopstein, 759 F.3d at 172;
see also id. (“A charge that appears likely to have left the jury ‘highly confused’ may, on that
ground alone, be reversed.” (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. One 25,900 Square Foot More
or Less Parcel of Land, 766 F.2d 685, 688 (2d Cir. 1985) (“A charge that appears likely to have
left the jury ‘highly confused’ may, on that ground alone, be reversed.”))). “Even if an initial
_________________________________________________________________
¹ The defense notes that the object of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three is a violation of the same
New York statute. While we do not contest that alleged sexual activity that occurred in other states can be evidence of
those conspiracies, the jury cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on those counts without finding that she acted with the intent
that someone under the age of 17 would engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New
York law.
¹ The defense notes that the object of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three is a violation of the same
New York statute. While we do not contest that alleged sexual activity that occurred in other states can be evidence of
those conspiracies, the jury cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on those counts without finding that she acted with the intent
that someone under the age of 17 would engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New
York law.
2068538.1
DOJ-OGR-00020853
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document