{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "85",
    "document_number": "79",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page85 of 93\n\n72\n\nMaxwell's argument to the contrary rests entirely on her reading of the jury note. According to Maxwell, the note shows that the jury \"decided that there was no corroborating evidence that Maxwell was present for, or helped to arrange, any of Jane's trips to New York, but that the flight logs did corroborate that Maxwell was present for Jane's trip to New Mexico.\" (Br.79). This reading, she claims, is buttressed by the fact that the jury acquitted on Count Two, which, in her telling, shows that the jury \"determined that the only corroborating evidence linking Maxwell to the New Mexico trip was a flight log showing that she was present on the trip but said nothing about whether she 'persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced' Jane to take the trip.\" (Br.79).\n\nJudge Nathan correctly rejected this argument. Judge Nathan found that the original jury instructions and the Government's summation captured the core of criminality charged in the Indictment, focusing specifically on conduct directed at and sexual activity in New York. (A.382-85). Even if the note revealed that the jury were confused and wondered whether it could convict based on conduct in New Mexico, Judge Nathan's response ameliorated that confusion. As Judge Nathan explained, she sent the jury back to the instruction, which \"accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding a violation of New York Law.\" (A.387). That was sufficient. See United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108, 126 (2d Cir. 2007) (court \"enjoys considerable discretion\" in \"framing a response\" to a jury note and \"is only required to answer the particular inquiries posed\"). As Judge Nathan explained, Maxwell failed to propose a better response,\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021732",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page85 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "72",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell's argument to the contrary rests entirely on her reading of the jury note. According to Maxwell, the note shows that the jury \"decided that there was no corroborating evidence that Maxwell was present for, or helped to arrange, any of Jane's trips to New York, but that the flight logs did corroborate that Maxwell was present for Jane's trip to New Mexico.\" (Br.79). This reading, she claims, is buttressed by the fact that the jury acquitted on Count Two, which, in her telling, shows that the jury \"determined that the only corroborating evidence linking Maxwell to the New Mexico trip was a flight log showing that she was present on the trip but said nothing about whether she 'persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced' Jane to take the trip.\" (Br.79).\n\nJudge Nathan correctly rejected this argument. Judge Nathan found that the original jury instructions and the Government's summation captured the core of criminality charged in the Indictment, focusing specifically on conduct directed at and sexual activity in New York. (A.382-85). Even if the note revealed that the jury were confused and wondered whether it could convict based on conduct in New Mexico, Judge Nathan's response ameliorated that confusion. As Judge Nathan explained, she sent the jury back to the instruction, which \"accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding a violation of New York Law.\" (A.387). That was sufficient. See United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108, 126 (2d Cir. 2007) (court \"enjoys considerable discretion\" in \"framing a response\" to a jury note and \"is only required to answer the particular inquiries posed\"). As Judge Nathan explained, Maxwell failed to propose a better response,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021732",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jane",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "79",
      "3536060",
      "85",
      "93",
      "Br.79",
      "A.382-85",
      "A.387",
      "506 F.3d 108",
      "126",
      "2d Cir. 2007",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021732"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a court transcript or a legal brief. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}