Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-1839House OversightLegal Filing

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the court's response to a jury note was erroneous and led t...

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the court's response to a jury note was erroneous and led to a constructive amendment/variance, as the jury was confused about the intent requirement for Count Four. They also argue that the conspiracy counts are multiplicitous because they are based on a single underlying criminal scheme.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
d-1839
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the court's response to a jury note was erroneous and led to a constructive amendment/variance, as the jury was confused about the intent requirement for Count Four. They also argue that the conspiracy counts are multiplicitous because they are based on a single underlying criminal scheme.

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

Ghislaine Maxwell's post-trial motionsConstructive amendment/variance in jury instructionsMultiplicity of conspiracy counts
0Share
PostReddit

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.