Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-706House OversightLegal Filing

The document discusses the appeals court's decision in a case involving Maxwell, affirming the distr...

The document discusses the appeals court's decision in a case involving Maxwell, affirming the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial and its response to a jury note regarding Count Four of the indictment. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that there was no constructive amendment or prejudicial variance from the indictment. The jury note concerned the interpretation of the second element of Count Four.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
d-706
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The document discusses the appeals court's decision in a case involving Maxwell, affirming the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial and its response to a jury note regarding Count Four of the indictment. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that there was no constructive amendment or prejudicial variance from the indictment. The jury note concerned the interpretation of the second element of Count Four.

Tags

denial of motion for a new trialjury note and responseconstructive amendment or prejudicial variance from indictment
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.