DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
723 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court opinion/legal decision (appellate)
File Size:
723 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of an appellate court decision (likely 2nd Circuit) dated December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida did not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell. Additionally, the court affirms that the indictment was within the statute of limitations and that the District Court correctly denied a motion for a new trial regarding juror misconduct.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the sentencing, appeal, and indictment being discussed.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased/Co-conspirator |
Mentioned regarding his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and whether it covered Maxwell.
|
| Juror | Juror |
Unnammed juror mentioned regarding 'erroneous answers during voir dire' which was the basis for a Rule 33 motion.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida |
Office that entered into the original NPA with Epstein.
|
|
| United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York |
Office that prosecuted Maxwell; court ruled they were not bound by the SDFL NPA.
|
|
| District Court |
The lower court whose decisions are being affirmed.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the original Epstein NPA.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction where Maxwell was prosecuted.
|
Relationships (1)
Discussion of whether Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement extended immunity to Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"We hold that Epstein’s NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
Quote #1
"We further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror’s erroneous answers during voir dire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
Quote #2
"The District Court also imposed a fine of $250,000 on each count for a total of $750,000."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,768 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 121-2, 12/02/2024, 3637741, Page4 of 26
of three years, three years, and five years, respectively. The District
Court also imposed a fine of $250,000 on each count for a total of
$750,000.
Court also imposed a fine of $250,000 on each count for a total of
$750,000.
On appeal, the questions presented are (1) whether Jeffrey
Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”)
barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office
for the Southern District of New York (“USAO-SDNY”); (2) whether
Maxwell’s second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021 (the
“Indictment”) complied with the statute of limitations; (3) whether the
District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33
motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth
Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) whether the District
Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment
of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment; and
(5) whether Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”)
barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office
for the Southern District of New York (“USAO-SDNY”); (2) whether
Maxwell’s second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021 (the
“Indictment”) complied with the statute of limitations; (3) whether the
District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33
motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth
Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) whether the District
Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment
of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment; and
(5) whether Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
We hold that Epstein’s NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution
by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. We hold
that Maxwell’s Indictment complied with the statute of limitations as
18 U.S.C. § 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for
offenses committed before the date of the statute’s enactment. We
further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror’s
erroneous answers during voir dire. We also hold that 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
by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. We hold
that Maxwell’s Indictment complied with the statute of limitations as
18 U.S.C. § 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for
offenses committed before the date of the statute’s enactment. We
further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror’s
erroneous answers during voir dire. We also hold that 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
4
DOJ-OGR-00021881
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document