court filing: DOJ-OGR-00021866
Summary
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.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (2)
Related Documents (6)
Court Filing: DOJ-OGR-00021862
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.
court filing: 20-00830
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.
court filing: 22-1426, Document 79
The document discusses the government's argument that the District Court's response to a jury note did not constructively amend the indictment, and that the evidence presented at trial was consistent with the charges in Counts Three and Four of the Indictment. It also references relevant case law and trial testimony.
Court Filing: 2221-42286
The document discusses Ghislane Maxwell's appeal of her sentence, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was 'materially different' from the allegations in the indictment and that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable. The court disagrees, finding that Maxwell was not 'unfairly and substantially' prejudiced and that her sentence was reasonable. The court upholds Maxwell's sentence of 240 months' imprisonment.
Court Filing: 523
The document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing for the admission of certain photographs from Jeffrey Epstein's New York house as evidence. These photographs are claimed to corroborate the testimony of a witness known as 'Jane' regarding her experiences in Epstein's house, particularly in the massage room where she alleges she was sexually abused. The government asserts that the photographs are relevant and should be admitted as they support Jane's testimony about the details of the massage room and Epstein's house.
Court Filing: 525
The defense responds to the government's letter arguing that the '900 series photos' of Jeffrey Epstein's apartment are inadmissible due to lack of authentication and relevance, as they were taken in 2019, long after the alleged events. The defense argues that without testimony confirming the photos accurately depict the apartment during the relevant time period, they are irrelevant and potentially misleading. The court had previously sustained the defense's objection to the photos' admission.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.