DOJ-OGR-00010383.jpg
713 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
713 KB
Summary
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is denying the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for acquittal regarding Counts Three, Four, and Six, noting that Counts One and Five were deemed multiplicitous and the jury found her not guilty on Count Two. The page specifically details the elements of Count Four, which involves the interstate transportation of a minor ('Jane') for illegal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (referred to as 'Maxwell' in citations); filing Rule 29 motion for acquittal.
|
| Jane | Victim |
Individual under age 17 transported by Defendant between 1994-1997 (Count Four).
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Evaluating and denying the Rule 29 motion.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; required to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
1994-1997
Period during which the Defendant allegedly transported 'Jane' for illegal sexual activity.
Interstate commerce / New York
2022-04-29
Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion regarding Counts Three, Four, and Six.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction for the laws violated regarding sexual activity.
|
Relationships (1)
Count Four charged the Defendant with... transportation of an individual [Jane] under the age of seventeen with intent to engage in sexual activity
Key Quotes (4)
"the Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010383.jpg
Quote #1
"This count related only to Jane during the period 1994 to 1997."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010383.jpg
Quote #2
"Count Four charged the Defendant with the substantive count of transportation of an individual under the age of seventeen with intent to engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010383.jpg
Quote #3
"the Defendant simply asserts that the Court should “enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 . . . because the government failed to prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010383.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,120 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 17 of 45
Following the close of the defense case, the Defendant renewed her previous Rule 29
application. Id. at 2736.
application. Id. at 2736.
In her brief, the Defendant reiterates her request that the Court “enter a judgment of
acquittal as to all counts.” Maxwell Br. at 30. The Court has deemed Counts One and Five
multiplicitous, see supra Part I, and therefore the Court will not enter judgment on those counts.
And at trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on Count Two. Thus, the Court will
consider the sufficiency of the evidence for the remaining counts: Three, Four, and Six. After
considering the arguments and evidence, the Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion.
acquittal as to all counts.” Maxwell Br. at 30. The Court has deemed Counts One and Five
multiplicitous, see supra Part I, and therefore the Court will not enter judgment on those counts.
And at trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on Count Two. Thus, the Court will
consider the sufficiency of the evidence for the remaining counts: Three, Four, and Six. After
considering the arguments and evidence, the Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion.
The Court first notes that the Defendant has not provided substantive argument on the
sufficiency of the evidence—in either the oral application or the post-conviction briefing—for
Counts Three, Four, or Six. Instead, for these remaining counts, the Defendant simply asserts
that the Court should “enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 . . . because
the government failed to prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Maxwell Reply at 18, Dkt. No. 647; Maxwell Br. at 30. The Court disagrees.
sufficiency of the evidence—in either the oral application or the post-conviction briefing—for
Counts Three, Four, or Six. Instead, for these remaining counts, the Defendant simply asserts
that the Court should “enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 . . . because
the government failed to prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Maxwell Reply at 18, Dkt. No. 647; Maxwell Br. at 30. The Court disagrees.
The Court first considers the substantive counts. Count Four charged the Defendant with
the substantive count of transportation of an individual under the age of seventeen with intent to
engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law. This count related only to Jane during
the period 1994 to 1997. The Government was required to establish the following elements
beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the Defendant knowingly transported an individual in
interstate commerce, as alleged in the Indictment; (2) that the Defendant transported the
individual with the intent that the individual would engage in sexual activity for which any
person can be charged with a criminal offense under New York law, as alleged in the Indictment;
and (3) that the Defendant knew that the individual was less than seventeen years old at the time
the substantive count of transportation of an individual under the age of seventeen with intent to
engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law. This count related only to Jane during
the period 1994 to 1997. The Government was required to establish the following elements
beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the Defendant knowingly transported an individual in
interstate commerce, as alleged in the Indictment; (2) that the Defendant transported the
individual with the intent that the individual would engage in sexual activity for which any
person can be charged with a criminal offense under New York law, as alleged in the Indictment;
and (3) that the Defendant knew that the individual was less than seventeen years old at the time
17
DOJ-OGR-00010383
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document