new mexico
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Accuser 2
|
Location of incident |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Location of conduct |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Travel incident location |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Travel logistics |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Location of alleged conduct |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00021016.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (likely a Government brief or Court Opinion) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's requests regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'travel to New York' and the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the UK, and Florida. The text argues that the Court's instructions were legally sound and that the Defendant's proposals would have confused the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00021013.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) discusses a dispute over a jury note regarding 'Count Four.' The argument centers on whether the jury could convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico versus the required New York law violation. The text details a debate over the placement of a comma in the jury's note and the Court's subsequent instruction to the jury to focus on New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021010.jpg
This document is a legal filing (likely an appellate brief response) from April 2022 summarizing testimony from a victim identified as 'Jane' regarding the criminal conduct of Ghislaine Maxwell ('the Defendant') and Jeffrey Epstein. It details how Jane met the pair at a summer camp, was groomed, and transported via private and commercial flights to properties in Florida, New York, and New Mexico for sexual activity starting when she was 14. The text highlights Maxwell's role in arranging travel and participating in the scheme to transport underage girls across state lines for illegal sexual acts.
DOJ-OGR-00021009.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses limiting instructions given to a jury. The instructions clarified that the testimony of two witnesses, Kate and Annie, could not be the sole basis for conviction on certain counts because their experiences either involved someone not legally a victim under the specific charges (Kate) or occurred in a different jurisdiction (Annie in New Mexico). The court aimed to focus the jury's attention on the specific alleged crime: the transport of a minor, Jane, to New York for sexual activity illegal under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00021007.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court ruling (filed April 29, 2022) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referred to as the Defendant). It addresses a defense motion regarding a 'constructive amendment,' specifically discussing whether the jury improperly convicted the Defendant based on intent for sexual activity in New Mexico (involving a victim named 'Jane') rather than New York, as charged in the indictment involving a scheme with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021004.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that denies a defendant's motions for acquittal and to vacate convictions related to the Mann Act. The court found sufficient evidence from witness testimonies (including from 'Carolyn', 'Annie', and 'Kate') to conclude that the defendant conspired with Epstein to transport minors to locations like New York, New Mexico, and the Caribbean for illegal sexual activity. The defendant's actions, such as paying for sexualized massages and inviting girls to travel, were considered part of this conspiracy, justifying the jury's conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00021003.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 29, 2022, outlines the court's conclusion that trial evidence supported a guilty verdict for the Defendant on Count Three, conspiracy to transport minors for illegal sexual activity. The document summarizes testimony from victims 'Jane' and 'Annie,' who described being groomed and taken on trips to New York and New Mexico by the Defendant and co-conspirator Epstein. The court found this and other evidence sufficient to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00020996.jpg
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a grooming tactic to gain victims' trust and facilitate sexual abuse. It cites testimony from a victim named 'Jane' about receiving money and payments for lessons, and mentions promises made to another victim, 'Annie'. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the conspiracy, noting that sexual conduct occurred not only in New York and Florida but also in New Mexico and London, involving other victims like Carolyn and Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00020864.jpg
This document is a handwritten note dated December 27, 2021, from an unknown individual (likely a juror) to Judge Nathan during the 'US v. Maxwell' trial. The author seeks clarification on Count Four, asking if the defendant can be found guilty for aiding in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico if the intent to engage in sexual activity was on Jane's part, not the defendant's. The note highlights a point of confusion regarding the legal elements required for a conviction on that specific charge.
DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020861.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the judge. Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury, arguing that it shows they are confused about the instructions for Count Four. Specifically, the jury is questioning whether they can convict the defendant, M. Maxwell, based solely on events that occurred in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00020858.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number and content) detailing a dispute over jury instructions. The Court rejects a proposed defense instruction regarding 'Count Two' and discusses the legal relevance of sexual activity involving 'Jane' in New Mexico versus New York. The Judge addresses attorney Mr. Everdell directly regarding these legal arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00020854.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00020852.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 27, 2021, during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the jury appears to be considering convicting Maxwell on Count Four based on events in New Mexico involving a victim named 'Jane,' whereas the indictment specified events in New York. The defense contends that allowing a conviction based on the New Mexico evidence would constitute a 'constructive amendment' or 'substantial variance' from the indictment, which would be a reversible legal error.
DOJ-OGR-00020851.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The author argues that for a conviction on Count Four, the jury must only consider evidence related to the violation of New York Penal Law concerning the transportation of 'Jane' from Florida to New York. The document stresses that any conduct that occurred in New Mexico is irrelevant to this specific charge, citing a statement by the government during the trial to support this point and avoid jury confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020849.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated December 27, 2021, from defense attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan during the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests additional jury instructions to clarify 'apparent errors' in the jury's understanding of Count Four, specifically regarding whether aiding in a return flight (rather than the flight to the location of sexual activity, such as New Mexico) constitutes guilt. The letter references a specific jury note (Court Exhibit #15) and cites the indictment regarding transportation from Florida to New York for sexual acts with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg
This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020843.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (part of an appeal filing dated Feb 28, 2023) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Ms. Menninger. They are analyzing a jury question regarding whether the defendant can be held responsible for specific flights (to New Mexico vs. New York) and discussing the legal necessity of proving transportation to a specific location versus the general intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text highlights the defense's argument that the indictment does not specify New Mexico exclusively.
DOJ-OGR-00020842.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) filed on 02/28/2023. It features a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger before a Judge regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of 'transportation' for illegal sexual activity. The discussion specifically focuses on a flight to New Mexico involving a victim referred to as 'Jane' and whether the intent of that specific travel leg was for sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00020841.jpg
This court transcript excerpt captures a legal discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court regarding a jury's question on 'aiding and abetting'. The conversation centers on the legal requirements for finding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty in relation to arranging travel to New Mexico. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury instruction requires the travel to have a 'significant or motivating purpose' across state lines, rather than focusing solely on who arranged the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020837.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated February 28, 2023 (filing date). Attorneys Mr. Everdell (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Prosecution) are arguing over how to answer a jury question regarding 'Count Four' and 'Jane.' The debate centers on whether a 'return flight' from New Mexico can serve as the basis for a conviction if the initial flight's intent for illegal sexual activity is in question.
DOJ-OGR-00020835.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated February 28, 2023. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury with the Judge, arguing that the jurors are distinguishing between a flight *to* New Mexico and a flight *from* New Mexico regarding 'illicit sexual activity.' Everdell states there is no record of a flight from New Mexico and argues about the necessary 'significant or motivating purpose' of the travel required for a guilty verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00020751.jpg
This document is a page from a legal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details allegations of Maxwell's involvement in recruiting and facilitating the sexual abuse of minors by Epstein, specifically mentioning Minor Victim-3 in London (1994-1995) and Minor Victim-4 from Florida (2001-2002). The page also outlines Count Four of the indictment, charging Maxwell with the transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity