DOJ-OGR-00008793.jpg
713 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing (page 4)
File Size:
713 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a legal submission to Judge Alison J. Nathan (dated Dec 27, 2021) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the jury must be instructed not to convict Maxwell on Count Four based on the victim 'Jane's' travel to New Mexico, as the indictment specifically charged travel to New York. The defense contends that a conviction based on the New Mexico events would constitute a 'constructive amendment' or 'variance' from the indictment, which is reversible error.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
The Honorable, recipient of the letter
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Subject of alleged travel and sexual abuse; central to Count Four argument
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'Ms. Maxwell'; subject of potential conviction on Count Four
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by 'Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE' and 'The Honorable Alison J. Nathan'
|
|
| Department of Justice |
DOJ-OGR footer code
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of alleged travel and sexual abuse discussed as potential basis for conviction
|
|
|
Location specified in the indictment (Count Four) regarding travel and violation of law
|
|
|
Origin point of Jane's alleged travel to New York
|
Relationships (1)
Discussion of convicting Ms. Maxwell based on acts involving Jane.
Key Quotes (4)
"Court Exhibit #15 indicates that the jury is considering a conviction on Count Four based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual abuse that purportedly took place in New Mexico."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008793.jpg
Quote #1
"Should the jury convict on this basis, it would be a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the express language of Count Four."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008793.jpg
Quote #2
"A constructive amendment like this is per se reversible error without a showing of prejudice."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008793.jpg
Quote #3
"Ms. Maxwell has no burden to prove prejudice at this point since the variance can still be prevented"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008793.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,103 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 4 of 7
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 27, 2021
Page 4
December 27, 2021
Page 4
Despite the government’s confidence, Court Exhibit #15 indicates that the jury is
considering a conviction on Count Four based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and
alleged sexual abuse that purportedly took place in New Mexico. Should the jury convict on this
basis, it would be a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the express language of Count
Four. Jane’s alleged travel from Florida to New York and the sex acts that she purportedly
engaged in there in violation of New York law are part of the “core of criminality” charged in
Count Four. See Wozniak, 126 F.3d at 109-111 (finding constructive amendment where
indictment charged a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, but the evidence at
trial focused on marijuana). A conviction based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and any
sexual activity that allegedly occurred while she was there would be premised on facts elicited at
trial that are “completely distinct” from the allegations in the indictment. Gross, 2017 WL
4685111, at *20. If the Court does not instruct the jury that they cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on
Count Four based on the alleged events in New Mexico, it would permit the jury to convict Ms.
Maxwell of an offense “other than that charged in the indictment” and constitute a constructive
amendment. Id. A constructive amendment like this is per se reversible error without a showing
of prejudice. United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 n.5 (2d Cir. 1998).
considering a conviction on Count Four based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and
alleged sexual abuse that purportedly took place in New Mexico. Should the jury convict on this
basis, it would be a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the express language of Count
Four. Jane’s alleged travel from Florida to New York and the sex acts that she purportedly
engaged in there in violation of New York law are part of the “core of criminality” charged in
Count Four. See Wozniak, 126 F.3d at 109-111 (finding constructive amendment where
indictment charged a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, but the evidence at
trial focused on marijuana). A conviction based on Jane’s travel to and from New Mexico and any
sexual activity that allegedly occurred while she was there would be premised on facts elicited at
trial that are “completely distinct” from the allegations in the indictment. Gross, 2017 WL
4685111, at *20. If the Court does not instruct the jury that they cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on
Count Four based on the alleged events in New Mexico, it would permit the jury to convict Ms.
Maxwell of an offense “other than that charged in the indictment” and constitute a constructive
amendment. Id. A constructive amendment like this is per se reversible error without a showing
of prejudice. United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 n.5 (2d Cir. 1998).
At the very least, if the jury convicts Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on Jane’s alleged
sexual activity in New Mexico, it would be a substantial variance from the allegations in the S2
Indictment, which requires an intent that Jane travel to New York and violate New York law. The
Court should instruct the jury as requested below to prevent such a variance from occurring. Ms.
Maxwell has no burden to prove prejudice at this point since the variance can still be prevented by
sexual activity in New Mexico, it would be a substantial variance from the allegations in the S2
Indictment, which requires an intent that Jane travel to New York and violate New York law. The
Court should instruct the jury as requested below to prevent such a variance from occurring. Ms.
Maxwell has no burden to prove prejudice at this point since the variance can still be prevented by
2068538.1
DOJ-OGR-00008793
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document