DOJ-OGR-00010382.jpg
719 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion
File Size:
719 KB
Summary
This document is page 16 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The page details the Court's denial of the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, citing various legal precedents regarding the sufficiency of evidence required to sustain a conviction. The text outlines the legal standard that evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the government.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the Rule 29 motion for acquittal (refers to Ghislaine Maxwell based on Case 1:20-cr-00330).
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority |
Entity denying the motion and making legal determinations.
|
| The jury | Fact Finder |
Made factual findings referenced in the text.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice |
Indicated by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in case law.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution team in the case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (1)
Reference to 'evidence against a particular defendant' and 'Government's case'.
Key Quotes (3)
"II. The Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010382.jpg
Quote #1
"The Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support any of her five counts of conviction"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010382.jpg
Quote #2
"the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010382.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,147 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 16 of 45
overturn any of the factual findings made by the jury” —it means only that, “as a matter of law,
the jury found the same thing twice.” Ansaldi, 372 F.3d at 125. Or, in this case, three times.
the jury found the same thing twice.” Ansaldi, 372 F.3d at 125. Or, in this case, three times.
II. The Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion.
The Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support any of her five counts of
conviction, and, therefore, the Court should enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under
Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 29 provides, in relevant part, that
“[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the
defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a); United States v. Pugh, 945 F.3d 9,
19 (2d Cir. 2019). “[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support
a criminal conviction must be . . . to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably
support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318
(1979). “The court must make that determination with the evidence against a particular
defendant, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable
inferences resolved in favor of the government.” Pugh, 945 F.3d at 19 (cleaned up) (quoting
Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 45). Under this inquiry, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319
(citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362 (1972)); United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536,
560 (2d Cir. 2022).
conviction, and, therefore, the Court should enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under
Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 29 provides, in relevant part, that
“[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the
defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a); United States v. Pugh, 945 F.3d 9,
19 (2d Cir. 2019). “[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support
a criminal conviction must be . . . to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably
support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318
(1979). “The court must make that determination with the evidence against a particular
defendant, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable
inferences resolved in favor of the government.” Pugh, 945 F.3d at 19 (cleaned up) (quoting
Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 45). Under this inquiry, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319
(citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362 (1972)); United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536,
560 (2d Cir. 2022).
At the close of the Government’s case, the Defendant made her Rule 29 application “with
respect to every count in the S2 indictment,” but “confine[d] [her] comments to address
specifically Counts One and Two.” Trial Tr. at 2266. The Court denied the motion. Id. at 2274.
respect to every count in the S2 indictment,” but “confine[d] [her] comments to address
specifically Counts One and Two.” Trial Tr. at 2266. The Court denied the motion. Id. at 2274.
16
DOJ-OGR-00010382
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document