DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg
629 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court order/opinion)
File Size:
629 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal ruling (likely denying a new trial) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a jury note asking for clarification on 'Count Four' regarding whether aiding a victim's ('Jane') return flight constitutes guilt if the defendant did not aid the initial flight to New Mexico for sexual activity. The Court rejects Maxwell's argument that the jury instruction was unclear or that it constructively amended the indictment, noting that Jane testified about numerous flights on both Epstein's private plane and commercial airlines.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the Defendant' and 'Maxwell'; arguing regarding jury instructions and constructive amendment to the I...
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Testified about taking numerous flights; subject of the jury's question regarding 'transportation' and 'sexual activi...
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate |
Mentioned regarding 'Epstein's private plane'.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Destination of a flight mentioned in the jury note and a 1997 flight.
|
|
|
Origin of a 1997 flight mentioned in arguments.
|
|
|
Destination of an unidentified return flight mentioned in arguments.
|
Relationships (2)
Discussion of Maxwell aiding in the transportation of Jane for sexual activity.
Jane testified about flying on Epstein's private plane.
Key Quotes (4)
"Under Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane’s return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg
Quote #1
"Jane testified about taking numerous flights both on Epstein’s private plane and on commercial carriers."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg
Quote #2
"The Defendant speculates extensively about which flights and evidence the jury was referencing in the note"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg
Quote #3
"the note was not 'crystal clear' as the Defendant contends."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,129 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page186 of 221
A-386
A-386
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 29 of 45
alter the fact that the evidence and instructions at trial captured the core of criminality of the
Indictment.
Indictment.
The jury note at issue read:
Under Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane’s return flight,
but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual
activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?
but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual
activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?
Court Ex. 15, Dkt. No. 593 at 23. After hearing from the parties, the Court determined that it
was unclear to what testimony the note referred and what legal question the note asked.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the appropriate course was to refer the jury back to the
instruction for the second element of Count Four, with a reminder to consider carefully the full
instruction. Trial Tr. at 3141. The Court also rejected the Defendant’s supplemental instruction
proposed the following day because it was partially unresponsive, partially redundant, and
partially an erroneous statement of law. Id. at 3148–50.
was unclear to what testimony the note referred and what legal question the note asked.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the appropriate course was to refer the jury back to the
instruction for the second element of Count Four, with a reminder to consider carefully the full
instruction. Trial Tr. at 3141. The Court also rejected the Defendant’s supplemental instruction
proposed the following day because it was partially unresponsive, partially redundant, and
partially an erroneous statement of law. Id. at 3148–50.
The Defendant’s contention that this series of events worked a constructive amendment
to the Indictment is without merit. First, the Defendant speculates extensively about which
flights and evidence the jury was referencing in the note, hazarding that the jury was focused on
a 1997 flight from New York to New Mexico and an unidentified return flight to Florida. See
Maxwell Br. at 14–15. But Jane testified about taking numerous flights both on Epstein’s private
plane and on commercial carriers. The note did not specify which of these many flights or other
testimony the jury was considering. The Court could not provide supplemental instruction basedon such a speculative foundation.
to the Indictment is without merit. First, the Defendant speculates extensively about which
flights and evidence the jury was referencing in the note, hazarding that the jury was focused on
a 1997 flight from New York to New Mexico and an unidentified return flight to Florida. See
Maxwell Br. at 14–15. But Jane testified about taking numerous flights both on Epstein’s private
plane and on commercial carriers. The note did not specify which of these many flights or other
testimony the jury was considering. The Court could not provide supplemental instruction basedon such a speculative foundation.
Second, the note was not “crystal clear” as the Defendant contends. Maxwell Reply at 6.
Rather, as sometimes occurs, the note was decidedly ambiguous as to the precise legal question
being asked. For example, the jury could have been asking about aiding-and-abetting liability as
Rather, as sometimes occurs, the note was decidedly ambiguous as to the precise legal question
being asked. For example, the jury could have been asking about aiding-and-abetting liability as
29
DOJ-OGR-00021012
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document