DOJ-OGR-00021000.jpg
640 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
640 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court opinion from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 29, 2022. The Court is addressing a post-trial Rule 29 motion for acquittal filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The Court denies the motion for the remaining counts (Three, Four, and Six), after noting the jury acquitted on Count Two and the Court deemed Counts One and Five multiplicitous. The document specifically begins to analyze Count Four, which involves the transportation of a minor named Jane for sexual activity in violation of New York law between 1994 and 1997.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the Defendant who filed a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. Her briefs are cited as "Maxwell Br." and "Maxwe...
|
| Jane | Individual / Victim |
Mentioned as the individual related to Count Four, involving transportation for sexual activity between 1994 and 1997.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judicial body |
The judicial body considering the Defendant's motions, denying the Rule 29 motion, and analyzing the charges.
|
| The Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, required to establish the elements of the charges against the Defendant.
|
Timeline (4 events)
A trial was held where a jury found the Defendant not guilty on Count Two.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of "New York law," which the Defendant is accused of violating in Count Four.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts."Source
— Defendant (Maxwell)
(Quoted from the Defendant's brief, stating her request to the Court.)
DOJ-OGR-00021000.jpg
Quote #1
"enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 . . . because the government failed to prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt."Source
— Defendant (Maxwell)
(The Defendant's assertion in her briefing regarding the remaining counts (Three, Four, and Six).)
DOJ-OGR-00021000.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,189 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page174 of 221
A-374
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 17 of 45
A-374
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 17 of 45
Following the close of the defense case, the Defendant renewed her previous Rule 29 application. Id. at 2736.
In her brief, the Defendant reiterates her request that the Court “enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts.” Maxwell Br. at 30. The Court has deemed Counts One and Five multiplicitous, see supra Part I, and therefore the Court will not enter judgment on those counts. And at trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on Count Two. Thus, the Court will consider the sufficiency of the evidence for the remaining counts: Three, Four, and Six. After considering the arguments and evidence, the Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion.
The Court first notes that the Defendant has not provided substantive argument on the sufficiency of the evidence—in either the oral application or the post-conviction briefing—for Counts Three, Four, or Six. Instead, for these remaining counts, the Defendant simply asserts that the Court should “enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 . . . because the government failed to prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.” Maxwell Reply at 18, Dkt. No. 647; Maxwell Br. at 30. The Court disagrees.
The Court first considers the substantive counts. Count Four charged the Defendant with the substantive count of transportation of an individual under the age of seventeen with intent to engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law. This count related only to Jane during the period 1994 to 1997. The Government was required to establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the Defendant knowingly transported an individual in interstate commerce, as alleged in the Indictment; (2) that the Defendant transported the individual with the intent that the individual would engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense under New York law, as alleged in the Indictment; and (3) that the Defendant knew that the individual was less than seventeen years old at the time
17
DOJ-OGR-00021000
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document