DOJ-OGR-00021135.jpg
631 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal appellate brief / court filing
File Size:
631 KB
Summary
This document is page 73 of a legal appellate brief filed on February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 22-1426). The text argues that the trial court erred regarding 'Juror 50,' claiming the juror had a bias regarding sexual abuse memories that should have disqualified them. It also argues 'Point IV,' stating the court constructively amended the indictment by allowing the jury to convict Maxwell on Count Four based on activity in New Mexico (testified to by 'Jane') that was not a violation of New York law.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the conviction being appealed; jury considered convicting her on Count Four.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Accused of downplaying prior sexual abuse, bias, and inaccurate answers during voir dire.
|
| Jane | Witness / Victim |
Provided testimony about sexual activity in New Mexico.
|
| The Court | Judiciary |
Made rulings on jury instructions and findings regarding Juror 50.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Source of the document (DOJ-OGR stamp).
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of sexual activity described in Jane's testimony.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction whose laws were relevant to Count Four.
|
Relationships (2)
after he retained and was advised by counsel
convicting Maxwell... based solely on Jane’s testimony
Key Quotes (3)
"his answers border on the absurd."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021135.jpg
Quote #1
"Thus, the court erred when it found that Juror 50 would not have been stricken as a juror even if he had answered the questions accurately during voir dire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021135.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court denied the defense’s request to give a clarifying instruction to the jury that the New Mexico conduct could not form the basis of a conviction on Count Four because it was not a violation of New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021135.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,425 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page88 of 113
brother to be family (#49) and that he did not consider sexual abuse a crime (#25),
his answers border on the absurd.
his answers border on the absurd.
A review of Juror 50’s statements to the media and hearing testimony
reveals that, after he retained and was advised by counsel, he took great pains to
downplay his prior sexual abuse. But his view of the way all victims recall
memories – which are at odds with the defendant’s expert – revealed a bias that
would have prevented him from serving as a juror, were he to have disclosed it.
Thus, the court erred when it found that Juror 50 would not have been stricken as a
juror even if he had answered the questions accurately during voir dire.
reveals that, after he retained and was advised by counsel, he took great pains to
downplay his prior sexual abuse. But his view of the way all victims recall
memories – which are at odds with the defendant’s expert – revealed a bias that
would have prevented him from serving as a juror, were he to have disclosed it.
Thus, the court erred when it found that Juror 50 would not have been stricken as a
juror even if he had answered the questions accurately during voir dire.
POINT IV
THE COURT CONSTRUCTIVELY AMENDED
COUNTS THREE AND FOUR OF THE INDICTMENT
COUNTS THREE AND FOUR OF THE INDICTMENT
A jury note sent during their deliberations (A230) clearly indicated that
the jurors were considering convicting Maxwell on Count Four of the
Indictment based solely on Jane’s testimony about sexual activity in New
Mexico. The Court denied the defense’s request to give a clarifying instruction
to the jury that the New Mexico conduct could not form the basis of a
conviction on Count Four because it was not a violation of New York law.
Instead, the Court directed the jury to the existing jury charge for Count Four.
The jury ultimately convicted Maxwell on Count Four and the two Mann Act
the jurors were considering convicting Maxwell on Count Four of the
Indictment based solely on Jane’s testimony about sexual activity in New
Mexico. The Court denied the defense’s request to give a clarifying instruction
to the jury that the New Mexico conduct could not form the basis of a
conviction on Count Four because it was not a violation of New York law.
Instead, the Court directed the jury to the existing jury charge for Count Four.
The jury ultimately convicted Maxwell on Count Four and the two Mann Act
73
DOJ-OGR-00021135
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document