DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
648 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
648 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing, discusses the District Court's response to a jury note during deliberations in a case against Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, not the initial flight where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too complex, and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in relation to her motion for a new trial, her contentions about juror questioning, and as the defendant in...
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned in a jury note concerning her transportation and the intent for her to engage in sexual activity.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding the District Court's questioning of this juror about potential misconduct and their...
|
| Ianniello | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir. 1989)'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | government agency |
Mentioned throughout as the court that denied Maxwell's motion, responded to a jury note, and questioned a juror.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Ianniello'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The jury deliberated and sent a note to the court for clarification on Count Four of the Indictment.
District Court
the jury
A hearing on potential juror misconduct involving Juror 50, mentioned in a footnote.
District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the jury's note as the destination of a flight where the intent was for sexual activity.
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses Maxwell's alleged role in transporting Jane for the purpose of sexual activity, which is the basis of Count Four of the Indictment.
The document details legal proceedings involving Maxwell as the defendant and the District Court as the presiding judicial body.
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
— the jury
(A note sent by the jury to the District Court during deliberations seeking clarification on the charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
Quote #1
"parse factually and legally"Source
— The District Court
(The court's stated reason for not directly answering the jury's note, finding it too difficult.)
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
Quote #2
"[w]e leave it to the district court’s discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may participate in questioning the witnesses, and whether to hold the hearing in camera."Source
— 2d Cir. Court (in United States v. Ianniello)
(A quote from a cited legal precedent regarding a court's discretion in handling hearings on juror misconduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
Quote #3
"Maxwell knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with the"Source
— The District Court
(Part of the court's instruction to the jury on the second element of Count Four, as described in a footnote.)
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,766 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1780-1 Filed 03/27/24 Page 19 of 26
enough; the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell’s motion for a new trial.34
4. The District Court’s Response to a Jury Note Did Not Result in a Constructive Amendment of, or Prejudicial Variance from, the Allegations in the Indictment
During jury deliberations, the jury sent the following jury note regarding Count Four of the Indictment:
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?35
The District Court determined that it would not respond to the note directly because it was difficult to “parse factually and legally” and instead referred the jury to the second element of Count Four.36
34 Nor did the District Court err in questioning juror 50 rather than allowing the parties to do so. In conducting a hearing on potential juror misconduct, “[w]e leave it to the district court’s discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may participate in questioning the witnesses, and whether to hold the hearing in camera.” United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir. 1989). And while Maxwell contends that the District Court improperly limited questioning about Juror 50’s role in deliberations, she both waived that argument below and fails to show here how any such questioning would not be foreclosed by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).
35 A-238.
36 A-207-221. The District Court’s instruction on the second element of Count Four required the jury to find that “Maxwell knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with the
19
DOJ-OGR-00014869
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document