mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008944.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20 of 37",
    "document_number": "600",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 20 of 37\n\nNew Mexico trip to see if it supported a conviction under Count Four, which led to the question posed by the Jury Note.\n\nThis is also consistent with the jury's decision to acquit Ms. Maxwell on the substantive enticement offense (Count Two). The jury likely determined that the only corroborating evidence linking Ms. 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. Indeed, Jane did not testify about having any interaction with Ms. Maxwell prior to the flight to New Mexico in which they discussed the trip. Hence, the acquittal on Count Two. By contrast, the jury likely believed that if they found that Ms. Maxwell had some role in arranging Jane's return flight from New Mexico, after the sexual abuse had already taken place, they could convict her on the substantive transportation count (Count Four), assuming that arranging the return flight was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four. Hence, the question in the Jury Note.\n\nRegardless, it is clear from the Jury Note that the jurors were deliberating with a mistaken understanding of the law - namely, that it would be sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four if they found that Ms. Maxwell had intended Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, without finding any intent to violate New York law. The Court's response to refer the jurors to the existing instructions was insufficient because the jury charge, which had been stripped of any mention of \"travel to New York,\" did not adequately instruct the jury that a conviction on Count Four could not be based solely on sexual abuse in New Mexico or any other jurisdiction outside of New York. It was necessary for the Court to give the jury a supplemental instruction, as requested by the defense, to clarify the correct basis for conviction under Count Four. The Court's refusal to do so allowed the jury to modify the essential elements of the\n\n15\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008944",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 20 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "New Mexico trip to see if it supported a conviction under Count Four, which led to the question posed by the Jury Note.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This is also consistent with the jury's decision to acquit Ms. Maxwell on the substantive enticement offense (Count Two). The jury likely determined that the only corroborating evidence linking Ms. 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. Indeed, Jane did not testify about having any interaction with Ms. Maxwell prior to the flight to New Mexico in which they discussed the trip. Hence, the acquittal on Count Two. By contrast, the jury likely believed that if they found that Ms. Maxwell had some role in arranging Jane's return flight from New Mexico, after the sexual abuse had already taken place, they could convict her on the substantive transportation count (Count Four), assuming that arranging the return flight was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four. Hence, the question in the Jury Note.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Regardless, it is clear from the Jury Note that the jurors were deliberating with a mistaken understanding of the law - namely, that it would be sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four if they found that Ms. Maxwell had intended Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, without finding any intent to violate New York law. The Court's response to refer the jurors to the existing instructions was insufficient because the jury charge, which had been stripped of any mention of \"travel to New York,\" did not adequately instruct the jury that a conviction on Count Four could not be based solely on sexual abuse in New Mexico or any other jurisdiction outside of New York. It was necessary for the Court to give the jury a supplemental instruction, as requested by the defense, to clarify the correct basis for conviction under Count Four. The Court's refusal to do so allowed the jury to modify the essential elements of the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008944",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 600",
      "Count Two",
      "Count Four",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008944"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 20 of 37."
}