DOJ-OGR-00010278.jpg
727 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (defense argument)
File Size:
727 KB
Summary
This document is page 12 of a defense filing (Document 647) dated March 11, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the jury instructions were insufficient and led to a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment, potentially allowing the jury to convict Maxwell based on activity in New Mexico rather than the required New York jurisdiction. It highlights a 'Jury Note' demonstrating the jury's confusion regarding Count Four and the application of New York Penal Law Section 130.55.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the conviction and the legal argument regarding jury instructions.
|
| Jane | Victim (Pseudonym) |
The person Ms. Maxwell allegedly intended to engage in sexual activity.
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority |
Judge/Court responsible for jury instructions.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Cited in legal precedent regarding limiting instructions.
|
|
| The government |
Argues that jury confusion was ameliorated; opposing party in the case.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction referenced in the penal law and jury instructions.
|
|
|
Location mentioned in relation to potential jury confusion about where the sexual activity occurred.
|
Relationships (1)
Argument concerns Maxwell's intent for Jane to engage in sexual activity.
Key Quotes (3)
"the Court created “a substantial likelihood” that Ms. Maxwell was convicted of crimes “distinctly different” from the ones alleged."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010278.jpg
Quote #1
"the jury thought it could potentially convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four if it found that she intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010278.jpg
Quote #2
"nowhere in the jury instructions does it state that a violation of New York law, or specifically a violation of Section 130.55, must occur"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010278.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,167 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 12 of 24
4685111, at *23 (“[T]he Second Circuit has emphasized the power of limiting instructions to
prevent constructive amendment[.]” (emphasis in original)). By declining to provide a
supplemental instruction, the Court created “a substantial likelihood” that Ms. Maxwell was
convicted of crimes “distinctly different” from the ones alleged. Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at
*21; see also Millstein, 401 F.3d at 65 (“When the trial evidence or the jury charge operates to
broaden the possible bases for conviction from that which appeared in the indictment, the
indictment has been constructively amended.”) (cleaned up)).
prevent constructive amendment[.]” (emphasis in original)). By declining to provide a
supplemental instruction, the Court created “a substantial likelihood” that Ms. Maxwell was
convicted of crimes “distinctly different” from the ones alleged. Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at
*21; see also Millstein, 401 F.3d at 65 (“When the trial evidence or the jury charge operates to
broaden the possible bases for conviction from that which appeared in the indictment, the
indictment has been constructively amended.”) (cleaned up)).
The government argues that any confusion the jury may have had on the issue of intent
was ameliorated by the Court’s decision to refer the jury to the existing instruction on the second
element of Count Four. (Opp. at 19). According to that instruction, the government had to prove
that Ms. Maxwell intended “that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law” and further specified that the
relevant criminal offense was a violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. (Instr. No.
21). The government contends that the jury could not have misunderstood the instruction
because it did not mention New Mexico at all and only mentioned an intent to engage in sexual
activity that violated New York law. (Opp. at 19-20).
was ameliorated by the Court’s decision to refer the jury to the existing instruction on the second
element of Count Four. (Opp. at 19). According to that instruction, the government had to prove
that Ms. Maxwell intended “that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law” and further specified that the
relevant criminal offense was a violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. (Instr. No.
21). The government contends that the jury could not have misunderstood the instruction
because it did not mention New Mexico at all and only mentioned an intent to engage in sexual
activity that violated New York law. (Opp. at 19-20).
The government’s confidence, however, is belied by the Jury Note, which indicates that
the jury thought it could potentially convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four if it found that she
intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico. And it is not hard to see where
this confusion came from. Although the jury instructions state that the jury needed to find that
Ms. Maxwell intended “that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged
with a criminal offense in violation of New York law,” nowhere in the jury instructions does it
state that a violation of New York law, or specifically a violation of Section 130.55, must occur
the jury thought it could potentially convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four if it found that she
intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico. And it is not hard to see where
this confusion came from. Although the jury instructions state that the jury needed to find that
Ms. Maxwell intended “that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged
with a criminal offense in violation of New York law,” nowhere in the jury instructions does it
state that a violation of New York law, or specifically a violation of Section 130.55, must occur
8
DOJ-OGR-00010278
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document