Court Filing: DOJ-OGR-00021862
Summary
The court discusses the application of 18 U.S.C. § 3283 to the defendant's case, rejecting a categorical approach in favor of a case-specific approach, and determines that Counts Three and Four qualify as offenses involving the sexual abuse of a minor. The court also addresses Maxwell's argument that the statute of limitations bars certain counts, citing Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (4)
Related Documents (6)
Court Filing: Case1:20-cr-00030-PAE
The court discusses the application of § 3283 to the defendant's offenses involving the sexual abuse of a minor and determines that Counts Three and Four qualify under this statute. The court also addresses Maxwell's argument that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations, referencing relevant case law such as Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
Court Filing - Letter to Judge: 722
The letter, filed by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, notifies the court and the government of the defendant's intention to present extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements made by witnesses Jane and Carolyn during their testimonies. The letter details specific inconsistencies between the witnesses' trial testimonies and their prior statements as recorded in 3500 materials.
court filing: DOJ-OGR-00021866
The document discusses the appeals court's decision to uphold the district court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial and its handling of a jury note regarding Count Four of the indictment. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that its response to the jury note did not result in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance from the indictment. The decision highlights the district court's discretion in managing jury deliberations and the limits of appellate review.
court filing: DOJ-OGR-00021868
The document discusses a court case where the defendant was charged with an offense, and the jury's note raised concerns about constructive amendment. The court ultimately agrees with the District Court that the jury instructions and evidence presented captured the 'core of criminality' and did not result in a constructive amendment. The court cites various precedents to support its decision.
Court Filing: 120366008380
The defendant, Ms. Maxwell, requested to modify a protective order to disclose certain documents to judicial officers in related civil cases. The court denied the request, finding that the defendant failed to establish good cause, but allowed limited disclosure of certain factual information under seal.
Court Filing: 122
The defendant, Ms. Maxwell, requests that the court dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the superseding indictment as they charge the same offense twice, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. The counts charge conspiracy to commit a crime against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 with different underlying crimes. The filing applies a multifactor test to determine whether the conspiracies are the same offense.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.