Relationship Details

This legal document, dated December 15, 2021, is an argument from Ms. Maxwell's counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. Counsel argues that because Jane denied the substance of a prior statement in court, they should be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, citing legal precedent. The document concludes by noting that due to time constraints, counsel was unable to meet a 10:15 p.m. deadline to list all such disputed statements.

This legal document, part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, provides jury instructions for Count Two against Ms. Maxwell, specifically focusing on the third element: "Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity." It defines what constitutes acting "intentionally" and clarifies that the government must prove that a "significant or motivating purpose" for encouraging an individual named Jane to travel across state lines was for illegal sexual activity, not that it was the sole purpose.

This document is a jury instruction (No. 22) from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It specifies the third element the Government must prove for Count Four of an indictment: that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, knew the individual referred to as 'Jane' was under seventeen years old at the time of the alleged criminal acts.

This document is a page from a legal proceeding, specifically a judge's charge to the jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the first element of Count Four, which accuses the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, of knowingly transporting a minor named Jane in interstate commerce between 1994 and 1997 for illegal sexual activity. The charge clarifies that the prosecution must prove Ms. Maxwell was actively involved in arranging the travel, but not necessarily that she physically transported Jane herself.

This document is a page from a legal filing dated August 10, 2022, detailing a judge's rulings on objections to a court transcript. The rulings assess the consistency of a witness named Jane's testimony against her prior statements concerning the presence of Ms. Maxwell, a past hike, and an instance of abuse in New York. The judge sustains some objections and overrules others, providing brief justifications for the decisions.

This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to vacate her convictions and grant a new trial. The argument is that the jury improperly convicted her on charges based on testimony about events in New Mexico, which was outside the scope of the original indictment premised on violations of New York law. The filing contends this constituted a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment, making the conviction invalid.

This court transcript captures an argument from a defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, objecting to a 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction for his client, Ms. Maxwell. He argues that the instruction is inappropriate because testimony from witnesses Jane, Annie, and Carolyn establishes Ms. Maxwell as an active participant in the alleged sexual crimes, not someone who deliberately ignored them. The attorney cites specific acts like participating in massages and groping to prove direct involvement, thereby negating the basis for a conscious avoidance theory.