DOJ-OGR-00008664.jpg
413 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (jury instructions/legal brief)
File Size:
413 KB
Summary
This document is page 126 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions explaining legal standards for proving a conspiracy, specifically regarding 'Count One, Three, and Five' of the indictment. The text instructs that circumstantial evidence ('actions speak louder than words') can be used to prove a mutual understanding between conspirators beyond a reasonable doubt.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown Co-conspirators | Alleged Conspirators |
Referred to as 'alleged individual co-conspirators' regarding whom evidence must be weighed.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Must prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Plaintiff in the case.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Co-conspirator 1
→
Conspiracy
→
Co-conspirator 2
Text refers to 'mutual understanding' and 'alleged individual co-conspirators'.
Key Quotes (3)
"Actions speak louder than words"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008664.jpg
Quote #1
"the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least two alleged conspirators came to a mutual understanding, either spoken or unspoken, to violate the law"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008664.jpg
Quote #2
"In determining whether such an agreement existed, you may consider direct as well as circumstantial evidence."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008664.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (996 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 563 Filed 12/18/21 Page 126 of 167
1 In determining whether such an agreement existed, you may consider direct as well as
2 circumstantial evidence. The old adage, “Actions speak louder than words,” applies here. Often,
3 the only evidence that is available with respect to the existence of a conspiracy is that of
4 disconnected acts and conduct on the part of the alleged individual co-conspirators. When taken
5 altogether and considered as whole, however, these acts and conduct may warrant the inference
6 that a conspiracy existed as conclusively as would direct proof, such as evidence of an express
7 agreement.
2 circumstantial evidence. The old adage, “Actions speak louder than words,” applies here. Often,
3 the only evidence that is available with respect to the existence of a conspiracy is that of
4 disconnected acts and conduct on the part of the alleged individual co-conspirators. When taken
5 altogether and considered as whole, however, these acts and conduct may warrant the inference
6 that a conspiracy existed as conclusively as would direct proof, such as evidence of an express
7 agreement.
8 In short, as far as the first element of the conspiracy is concerned, the Government must
9 prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least two alleged conspirators came to a mutual
10 understanding, either spoken or unspoken, to violate the law in the manner charged in Counts
11 One, Three, and Five of the Indictment.
9 prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least two alleged conspirators came to a mutual
10 understanding, either spoken or unspoken, to violate the law in the manner charged in Counts
11 One, Three, and Five of the Indictment.
43
DOJ-OGR-00008664
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document