DOJ-OGR-00008672.jpg
419 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (jury instructions)
File Size:
419 KB
Summary
This document is page 51 (electronic page 134) of jury instructions filed on December 18, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text instructs the jury that to convict Maxwell on Counts One and Three, they must find that an overt act of conspiracy involved a witness other than 'Kate,' meaning Kate's testimony alone is insufficient for these specific counts.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of potential conviction on Counts One or Three.
|
| Kate | Witness |
A witness whose testimony alone is insufficient for conviction on Counts One or Three without corroborating overt act...
|
| PAE | Judge |
Presiding Judge (Initials in case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Has the burden of proof regarding overt acts.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Instructions regarding convicting Maxwell based on Kate's testimony.
Key Quotes (3)
"As to Counts One and Three, the Government has to prove that at least one of the overt acts in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a witness other than Kate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008672.jpg
Quote #1
"Put simply: you may not convict Ms. Maxwell on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate’s testimony or an overt act involving Kate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008672.jpg
Quote #2
"You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely the time alleged in the Indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008672.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,061 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 563 Filed 12/18/21 Page 134 of 167
1 the Indictment, if you are convinced that the act occurred while the conspiracy was still in
2 existence and that it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in the Indictment. In
3 addition, you need not be unanimous as to which overt act you find to have been committed. It
4 is sufficient as long as all of you find that at least one overt act was committed by one of the
5 conspirators.
6 As to Counts One and Three, the Government has to prove that at least one of the overt
7 acts in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a witness other than Kate. Put simply: you may
8 not convict Ms. Maxwell on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate’s testimony or an
9 overt act involving Kate.
10 You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely
11 the time alleged in the Indictment. It is sufficient if you are convinced beyond a reasonable
12 doubt, that it occurred at or about the time and place stated.
13
2 existence and that it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in the Indictment. In
3 addition, you need not be unanimous as to which overt act you find to have been committed. It
4 is sufficient as long as all of you find that at least one overt act was committed by one of the
5 conspirators.
6 As to Counts One and Three, the Government has to prove that at least one of the overt
7 acts in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a witness other than Kate. Put simply: you may
8 not convict Ms. Maxwell on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate’s testimony or an
9 overt act involving Kate.
10 You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely
11 the time alleged in the Indictment. It is sufficient if you are convinced beyond a reasonable
12 doubt, that it occurred at or about the time and place stated.
13
51
DOJ-OGR-00008672
DOJ-OGR-00008672
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document