DOJ-OGR-00021774.jpg
660 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / appellate court filing
File Size:
660 KB
Summary
This page from a legal appeal (Case 22-1426) argues that the District Court erred in sentencing Ghislaine Maxwell by applying a leadership enhancement. The defense contends there is no evidence Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, noting that the Government chose not to indict Kellen and that pilots testified they did not know who Kellen worked for. The document requests that Maxwell be resentenced.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of sentencing appeal; arguing against leadership enhancement and requesting a new trial/resentencing.
|
| Sarah Kellen | Alleged Co-conspirator |
Described as someone the Government claimed was a criminal participant but chose not to indict; the defense argues Ma...
|
| Two pilots | Witnesses |
Testified at trial; testimony cited to show they did not know who Kellen worked for.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The District Court |
The lower court that sentenced Maxwell, alleged to have erred.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; defending the court's sentencing decision.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Trial)
Relationships (2)
Brief argues there is no evidence Maxwell supervised Kellen, despite the lower court's finding.
Government claimed Kellen was a criminal participant but chose not to indict her.
Key Quotes (5)
"The Court abused its discretion in not granting Ms. Maxwell a new trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021774.jpg
Quote #1
"THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MS. MAXWELL"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021774.jpg
Quote #2
"Specifically, the court’s finding that Ms. Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, who the Government claimed was a criminal participant but chose not to indict, is unsupported by the record."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021774.jpg
Quote #3
"The Government at sentencing correctly conceded that there was no direct evidence that Maxwell supervised Kellen."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021774.jpg
Quote #4
"The two pilots did not know who Kellen worked for and waffled in their testimony."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021774.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,539 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page32 of 35
childhood sexual abuse identical to that experienced by the victims in the case and
lied to conceal his misconduct at the hearing. The Court abused its discretion in not
granting Ms. Maxwell a new trial.
lied to conceal his misconduct at the hearing. The Court abused its discretion in not
granting Ms. Maxwell a new trial.
POINT III
(Point V in Appellant’s Principal Brief)
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MS. MAXWELL
(Point V in Appellant’s Principal Brief)
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MS. MAXWELL
The Government defends the Court’s decision to apply a four-level leadership
enhancement under Section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the trial
evidence did not support a finding that Ms. Maxwell was an “organizer or leader of
a criminal activity that was…otherwise extensive,” because there was no evidence
that she supervised another criminal participant. Specifically, the court’s finding that
Ms. Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, who the Government claimed was a criminal
participant but chose not to indict, is unsupported by the record. See Br. 77. This
error coupled with the Court’s failure to provide reasons for its upward variance as
required by 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(c)(2), requires that Ms. Maxwell be resentenced.
enhancement under Section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the trial
evidence did not support a finding that Ms. Maxwell was an “organizer or leader of
a criminal activity that was…otherwise extensive,” because there was no evidence
that she supervised another criminal participant. Specifically, the court’s finding that
Ms. Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, who the Government claimed was a criminal
participant but chose not to indict, is unsupported by the record. See Br. 77. This
error coupled with the Court’s failure to provide reasons for its upward variance as
required by 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(c)(2), requires that Ms. Maxwell be resentenced.
To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been
the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants. See
USSG Section 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. The Government at sentencing correctly conceded
that there was no direct evidence that Maxwell supervised Kellen. A406. The two
pilots did not know who Kellen worked for and waffled in their testimony. Tr. 204,
the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants. See
USSG Section 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. The Government at sentencing correctly conceded
that there was no direct evidence that Maxwell supervised Kellen. A406. The two
pilots did not know who Kellen worked for and waffled in their testimony. Tr. 204,
26
DOJ-OGR-00021774
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document