DOJ-OGR-00008945.jpg
728 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
728 KB
Summary
This legal document is a motion arguing for the convictions of Ms. Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four to be vacated. The defense contends that the jury was improperly influenced by evidence of conduct in New Mexico involving a person named 'Jane', which was not part of the original indictment. This created a 'constructive amendment' or a prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the proof at trial, warranting a new trial on these counts.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the legal filing, whose convictions on several counts are being challenged.
|
| D'Amelio |
Referenced in a legal citation (D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419-21).
|
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned in relation to her sexual abuse in New Mexico and a trip she told the FBI about.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned in a legal citation regarding constructive amendments in conspiracy cases.
|
| FBI | government agency |
Mentioned as the agency Jane had previously told about a trip to New Mexico.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Trial of Ms. Maxwell, where it is argued there was a variance between the proof at trial and the allegations in the indictment.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location of conduct and sexual abuse involving 'Jane' that was allegedly used to convict Ms. Maxwell.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of the law that the conspiracy counts required an agreement to violate.
|
Relationships (1)
The document argues that allegations concerning Jane's sexual abuse in New Mexico were improperly used to convict Ms. Maxwell on Mann Act counts, suggesting a connection between the two in the context of the criminal case.
Key Quotes (2)
"where the district court either refused to give a limiting instruction defining the scope of a conspiracy or relevance of certain evidence, or where it gave an instruction defining the conspiracy too broadly"Source
— Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *23 (citing the Second Circuit)
(Cited as an example of a constructive amendment found by the Second Circuit.)
DOJ-OGR-00008945.jpg
Quote #1
"A variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment"Source
— Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *31
(A legal definition of 'variance' cited to argue that Ms. Maxwell was substantially prejudiced.)
DOJ-OGR-00008945.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,115 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 21 of 37
charged offense and created a substantial likelihood that Ms. Maxwell was convicted of a crime other than the one alleged in the Indictment. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419-21.
Moreover, given the substantial likelihood that the jury convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on the New Mexico conduct, there is also a substantial likelihood that they improperly convicted her on the Mann Act conspiracy counts (Counts One and Three) based on the same conduct. The substantive transportation offense charged in Count Four was the object of the conspiracy charged in Count Three, and both conspiracy counts required an agreement to violate New York law. See Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *23 (citing examples where the Second Circuit found a constructive amendment “where the district court either refused to give a limiting instruction defining the scope of a conspiracy or relevance of certain evidence, or where it gave an instruction defining the conspiracy too broadly”).
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell’s convictions on Counts One, Three, and Four were based on a constructive amendment to the charged offenses. The Court must vacate these convictions and grant a new trial on these counts.
E. The Variance Between the Proof at Trial and the Allegations in the Indictment Substantially Prejudiced Ms. Maxwell.
In the alternative, the Court must vacate Ms. Maxwell’s convictions on Counts One, Three, and Four because the record demonstrates a variance between the proof at trial and the allegations in the Indictment that substantially prejudiced Ms. Maxwell. See Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *31 (cleaned up) (“A variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment” which causes “substantial prejudice” to the defendant).
Here, the Mann Act counts did not contain any allegations concerning Jane’s sexual abuse in New Mexico. Indeed, although Jane had previously told the FBI about the trip to New
16
DOJ-OGR-00008945
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document