DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg
701 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion
File Size:
701 KB
Summary
This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Document 621) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. The Government argues that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three (Mann Act conspiracy) and Count Five (Sex Trafficking conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act), asserting they are distinct criminal schemes and not multiplicitous. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding jury instructions related to a witness/victim referred to as 'Jane'.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Testimony discussed regarding limiting instructions during trial.
|
| The defendant | Defendant |
Implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330; described as ignoring distinctions between counts.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
United States District Court (Judge Paul A. Engelmayer implied by initials PAE).
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution (Department of Justice/US Attorney's Office).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-04-16
Court Order holding Government was entitled to present three different counts to the jury.
Court Record
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction where the violation of law was charged and where intent to commit a criminal sexual act was required.
|
Relationships (1)
Government arguing for judgment on specific counts against the defendant.
Key Quotes (5)
"the violation of law is as charged in New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court, the Government, and the defense were painstaking during trial to ensure that the jury understood that the Mann Act counts required an intent to commit a criminal sexual act in New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court Should Enter Judgment on Counts Three and Five"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg
Quote #3
"the Government submits that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three, which was predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), and Count Five, which was predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1591."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg
Quote #4
"Counts Three and Five arose from different criminal schemes, involving different criminal conduct, different statutory predicates, and a different modus operandi."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,061 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 25 of 51
need to repeat those instructions in the context of the full charge, which clarified that “the violation
of law is as charged in New York.” (Tr. 2774-75, 2777). And the fact that the defense failed to
seek or receive a limiting instruction before Jane’s testimony did not provide a separate basis for
including a limiting instruction in the final charge. (Tr. 2777). The Court, the Government, and
the defense were painstaking during trial to ensure that the jury understood that the Mann Act
counts required an intent to commit a criminal sexual act in New York. That the defense missed
an additional opportunity for a limiting instruction is not a prejudicial variance, much less a
constructive amendment.
of law is as charged in New York.” (Tr. 2774-75, 2777). And the fact that the defense failed to
seek or receive a limiting instruction before Jane’s testimony did not provide a separate basis for
including a limiting instruction in the final charge. (Tr. 2777). The Court, the Government, and
the defense were painstaking during trial to ensure that the jury understood that the Mann Act
counts required an intent to commit a criminal sexual act in New York. That the defense missed
an additional opportunity for a limiting instruction is not a prejudicial variance, much less a
constructive amendment.
II. The Court Should Enter Judgment on Counts Three and Five
The S2 Indictment charged three conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Counts One and
Three were predicated on two different provisions of the Mann Act, whereas Count Five charged
a conspiracy based on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. As the Court held in an April 16,
2021 Order, the Government was entitled to present these three different counts to the jury. (Dkt.
No. 207 at 27). Following the verdict, however, the Government agrees that the Court should enter
judgment on only one of the Mann Act conspiracy counts, given the similarities between those
counts. Accordingly, of the three conspiracy counts charged in the S2 Indictment, the Government
submits that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three, which was predicated on 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423(a), and Count Five, which was predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
Three were predicated on two different provisions of the Mann Act, whereas Count Five charged
a conspiracy based on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. As the Court held in an April 16,
2021 Order, the Government was entitled to present these three different counts to the jury. (Dkt.
No. 207 at 27). Following the verdict, however, the Government agrees that the Court should enter
judgment on only one of the Mann Act conspiracy counts, given the similarities between those
counts. Accordingly, of the three conspiracy counts charged in the S2 Indictment, the Government
submits that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three, which was predicated on 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423(a), and Count Five, which was predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
Counts Three and Five are not multiplicitous, and the Court should enter judgment on both
counts. In particular, as discussed in greater detail below, Counts Three and Five arose from
different criminal schemes, involving different criminal conduct, different statutory predicates,
and a different modus operandi. The defendant ignores these important distinctions, claiming, in
24
counts. In particular, as discussed in greater detail below, Counts Three and Five arose from
different criminal schemes, involving different criminal conduct, different statutory predicates,
and a different modus operandi. The defendant ignores these important distinctions, claiming, in
24
DOJ-OGR-00009587
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document