DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
740 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal brief/memorandum)
File Size:
740 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 647, filed March 11, 2022) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the jury may have erroneously convicted Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four based on a finding that she intended sexual activity to occur in New Mexico, rather than New York as required by law. The text cites a 'Jury Note' (Court Exhibit #15) as evidence that the jury was confused about the location requirement and asserts the Court failed to correct this misunderstanding.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'Ms. Maxwell'; document argues her conviction on Counts One, Three, and Four may be legally flawed due...
|
| Jane | Victim (Pseudonym) |
Mentioned as a victim regarding 'Count Four'; discussion centers on whether Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in se...
|
| The Jury | Decision Makers |
Sent a note (Exhibit #15) indicating potential confusion about the location requirements (NY vs NM) for the conviction.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Gross).
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Parker).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Referenced in footer code 'DOJ-OGR-00010272'.
|
|
| The Government |
Argued there was 'no likelihood' of error; opposing the defense's current argument.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-03-11
Filing of Document 647 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Southern District of New York
Defense Counsel
Court
Unknown
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the law required the intended sexual activity to take place for a valid conviction.
|
|
|
The location where the defense argues the jury may have believed the sexual activity was intended to occur, leading t...
|
Relationships (1)
Discussion of Maxwell's intent for Jane to engage in sexual activity.
Key Quotes (4)
"the dispute is whether there is a substantial likelihood that the jury convicted Ms. Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four without finding that she intended Jane and the other victims to engage in sexual activity in New York"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
Quote #1
"Based on a plain reading of the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15), it is substantially likely that this is exactly what happened in this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
Quote #2
"the Jury Note laid bare that the jury was confused about that element and had the mistaken belief that if it found that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico... it could convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four without finding that she intended Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
Quote #3
"it was incumbent on the Court to correct the jury’s misunderstanding of an essential element of the offense with a supplemental instruction"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,207 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 24
that [Ms. Maxwell] was not convicted of the crime described in that core, but of a crime
‘distinctly different’ from the one alleged.” United States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017
WL 4685111, at *21 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017). In other words, the dispute is whether there is a
substantial likelihood that the jury convicted Ms. Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four
without finding that she intended Jane and the other victims to engage in sexual activity in New
York in violation of New York law, and instead convicted her of a “distinctly different” crime
based on a finding that she intended the illegal sexual activity to occur in New Mexico.
‘distinctly different’ from the one alleged.” United States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017
WL 4685111, at *21 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017). In other words, the dispute is whether there is a
substantial likelihood that the jury convicted Ms. Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four
without finding that she intended Jane and the other victims to engage in sexual activity in New
York in violation of New York law, and instead convicted her of a “distinctly different” crime
based on a finding that she intended the illegal sexual activity to occur in New Mexico.
Based on a plain reading of the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15), it is substantially likely
that this is exactly what happened in this case. The government once again confidently states
that there is “no likelihood” that this could have occurred because the government never argued
this as a theory of guilt and the jury instructions required the jury to find that Ms. Maxwell
intended to violate New York law. (Opp. at 10). But that argument misses the mark entirely.
Regardless of what the government did or did not argue in its summation, or what the jury
instructions did or did not say about the intent requirement for Count Four, the Jury Note laid
bare that the jury was confused about that element and had the mistaken belief that if it found
that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, and the other
elements of Count Four were satisfied, it could convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four without
finding that she intended Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York.
that this is exactly what happened in this case. The government once again confidently states
that there is “no likelihood” that this could have occurred because the government never argued
this as a theory of guilt and the jury instructions required the jury to find that Ms. Maxwell
intended to violate New York law. (Opp. at 10). But that argument misses the mark entirely.
Regardless of what the government did or did not argue in its summation, or what the jury
instructions did or did not say about the intent requirement for Count Four, the Jury Note laid
bare that the jury was confused about that element and had the mistaken belief that if it found
that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, and the other
elements of Count Four were satisfied, it could convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four without
finding that she intended Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York.
At that point, it was incumbent on the Court to correct the jury’s misunderstanding of an
essential element of the offense with a supplemental instruction, as the defense requested. See
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612-13 (1946) (When “a jury makes explicit its
difficulties [through a written inquiry,] a trial judge should clear them away with concrete
accuracy”); United States v. Parker, 903 F.2d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 1990) (when a jury sends a note
essential element of the offense with a supplemental instruction, as the defense requested. See
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612-13 (1946) (When “a jury makes explicit its
difficulties [through a written inquiry,] a trial judge should clear them away with concrete
accuracy”); United States v. Parker, 903 F.2d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 1990) (when a jury sends a note
2
DOJ-OGR-00010272
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document