DOJ-OGR-00021007.jpg
648 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
File Size:
648 KB
Summary
This document is page 24 of a court ruling (filed April 29, 2022) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referred to as the Defendant). It addresses a defense motion regarding a 'constructive amendment,' specifically discussing whether the jury improperly convicted the Defendant based on intent for sexual activity in New Mexico (involving a victim named 'Jane') rather than New York, as charged in the indictment involving a scheme with Jeffrey Epstein.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Co-conspirator |
Described as part of a scheme with the Defendant to cause underage girls to travel for sexual activity.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) |
Charged with Count Three (conspiracy) and Count Four (transportation of minors).
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
The Defendant argues the jury found intent for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico rather than New York.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case number and ruling context.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Cited in legal precedents (United States v. Gramins, D'Amelio, Mollica).
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where the scheme intended for girls to engage in sexual activity; location of violation of law.
|
|
|
Location where the Defendant argues the jury found she intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity.
|
Relationships (1)
Text describes a 'scheme by Epstein and the Defendant to cause underage girls to travel to New York'.
Key Quotes (3)
"The core of criminality of these counts, the parties agree, was a scheme by Epstein and the Defendant to cause underage girls to travel to New York with the intent that they would engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021007.jpg
Quote #1
"Namely, the Defendant argues that in convicting her of Count Four, the jury found she intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, without finding that she intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021007.jpg
Quote #2
"Count Four charged the Defendant with transportation of an individual under the age of seventeen with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021007.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,313 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page181 of 221
A-381
A-381
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 24 of 45
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Such a motion is granted “sparingly and in the most
extraordinary circumstances, and only in order to avert a perceived miscarriage of justice.”
United States v. Gramins, 939 F.3d 429, 444 (2d Cir. 2019) (cleaned up).
extraordinary circumstances, and only in order to avert a perceived miscarriage of justice.”
United States v. Gramins, 939 F.3d 429, 444 (2d Cir. 2019) (cleaned up).
B. No constructive amendment occurred.
Count Four charged the Defendant with transportation of an individual under the age of
seventeen with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity, and Count Three charged a conspiracy
to do the same. The core of criminality of these counts, the parties agree, was a scheme by
Epstein and the Defendant to cause underage girls to travel to New York with the intent that they
would engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law. Gov. Br. at 6; Maxwell Br. at 9.⁴
seventeen with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity, and Count Three charged a conspiracy
to do the same. The core of criminality of these counts, the parties agree, was a scheme by
Epstein and the Defendant to cause underage girls to travel to New York with the intent that they
would engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law. Gov. Br. at 6; Maxwell Br. at 9.⁴
The Defendant contends that a jury note received during deliberations revealed that the
jury convicted the Defendant on a crime different from this core of criminality. Namely, the
Defendant argues that in convicting her of Count Four, the jury found she intended for Jane to
engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, without finding that she intended for Jane to engage in
sexual activity in New York. Maxwell Reply at 2. She argues the Court’s decision to refer the
jury back to the charge and refusal to give a supplemental instruction was error. As a result of
this same error, she says, the jury also improperly convicted her of Count Three. For the reasons
that follow, the Court concludes that there is not a “substantial likelihood” that the Defendant
was “convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.” D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at
416 (quoting United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988)).
jury convicted the Defendant on a crime different from this core of criminality. Namely, the
Defendant argues that in convicting her of Count Four, the jury found she intended for Jane to
engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, without finding that she intended for Jane to engage in
sexual activity in New York. Maxwell Reply at 2. She argues the Court’s decision to refer the
jury back to the charge and refusal to give a supplemental instruction was error. As a result of
this same error, she says, the jury also improperly convicted her of Count Three. For the reasons
that follow, the Court concludes that there is not a “substantial likelihood” that the Defendant
was “convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.” D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at
416 (quoting United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988)).
____________________
⁴ The Defendant also contends that her conviction on Count One was the result of a constructive amendment.
Because the Court will not enter judgment on Count One per the parties’ consent, the Court does not address Count
One here. In any event, the Defendant’s argument as to why Count One was constructively amended is the same as
her argument as to Count Three, and the Court’s analysis would be the same. See Maxwell Br. at 16.
⁴ The Defendant also contends that her conviction on Count One was the result of a constructive amendment.
Because the Court will not enter judgment on Count One per the parties’ consent, the Court does not address Count
One here. In any event, the Defendant’s argument as to why Count One was constructively amended is the same as
her argument as to Count Three, and the Court’s analysis would be the same. See Maxwell Br. at 16.
24
DOJ-OGR-00021007
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document