DOJ-OGR-00020854.jpg
522 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal letter/motion (court filing)
File Size:
522 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021, filed during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The defense argues that a jury note indicates confusion regarding Counts Two and Four, specifically concerning jurisdiction and New York law. The text argues that the jury should not be permitted to convict Maxwell based on conduct that occurred in New Mexico (specifically aiding in a return flight from New Mexico) as it does not constitute a violation of New York law.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Recipient of the letter; Judge presiding over the case.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
referred to as 'Ms. Maxwell'; subject of the potential conviction on Count Four.
|
| Carvajal | Case Law Reference |
Referenced in citation People v. Carvajal.
|
| McLaughlin | Case Law Reference |
Referenced in citation People v. McLaughlin.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| New York Court of Appeals |
Implied by case citations (N.Y.3d, N.Y.2d).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-12-27
Submission of legal arguments regarding jury instructions during deliberation.
Court (New York)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction in question; location of applicable law.
|
|
|
Location where alleged conduct occurred; origin of the 'return flight'.
|
Relationships (1)
alleged conduct occurring in New Mexico
Key Quotes (4)
"The jury note indicates that the jury is confused about the second element of Count Four, and by extension, the third element of Count Two."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020854.jpg
Quote #1
"The court’s answer to the jury’s question permits the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on alleged conduct occurring in New Mexico—aiding in a return flight from New Mexico."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020854.jpg
Quote #2
"Under New York law, an intent to engage in sexual activity in any other state cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020854.jpg
Quote #3
"Not only is that conduct not charged in the indictment... it also is not illegal under New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020854.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,654 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page28 of 221
A-228
A-228
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 6 of 7
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 27, 2021
Page 6
December 27, 2021
Page 6
instruction is not itself erroneous or highly confusing, a supplemental instruction prompted by a
jury question may be so muddled as to warrant vacatur.” Id. at 172.
jury question may be so muddled as to warrant vacatur.” Id. at 172.
The jury note indicates that the jury is confused about the second element of Count Four,
and by extension, the third element of Count Two. Both counts require an intent to violate New
York law and cannot be based on any conduct that allegedly occurred in New Mexico (or any
other state besides New York). The court’s answer to the jury’s question permits the jury to
convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on alleged conduct occurring in New Mexico—aiding
in a return flight from New Mexico. Not only is that conduct not charged in the indictment (see
discussion above), it also is not illegal under New York law. Under New York law, an intent to
engage in sexual activity in any other state cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law,
as charged in Counts Two and Four. See People v. Carvajal, 6 N.Y.3d 305, 312 (2005) (“CPL
20.20[] has codified the general principle that, for New York to exercise criminal jurisdiction,
some alleged conduct or a consequence of that conduct must have occurred in the state.”). If the
defendant disputes the evidence of the State’s prosecutorial authority at trial, “the trial court
should charge the jury that jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v.
McLaughlin, 80 N.Y.2d 466, 472 (N.Y. 1992).
and by extension, the third element of Count Two. Both counts require an intent to violate New
York law and cannot be based on any conduct that allegedly occurred in New Mexico (or any
other state besides New York). The court’s answer to the jury’s question permits the jury to
convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on alleged conduct occurring in New Mexico—aiding
in a return flight from New Mexico. Not only is that conduct not charged in the indictment (see
discussion above), it also is not illegal under New York law. Under New York law, an intent to
engage in sexual activity in any other state cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law,
as charged in Counts Two and Four. See People v. Carvajal, 6 N.Y.3d 305, 312 (2005) (“CPL
20.20[] has codified the general principle that, for New York to exercise criminal jurisdiction,
some alleged conduct or a consequence of that conduct must have occurred in the state.”). If the
defendant disputes the evidence of the State’s prosecutorial authority at trial, “the trial court
should charge the jury that jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v.
McLaughlin, 80 N.Y.2d 466, 472 (N.Y. 1992).
2068538.1
DOJ-OGR-00020854
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document