mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010274.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "647",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 24\n\nUnder the second element of Count Four, can the defendant be found guilty if the defendant's intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico and if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight from New Mexico, but not the flight to New Mexico?\n\nHence, the question posed by the Jury Note contained two parts. The jury wanted to know if it was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four if it found (1) that Ms. Maxwell's intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, and (2) that Ms. Maxwell assisted with Jane's return flight from New Mexico, but not her flight to New Mexico. That is the straightforward, common sense reading of the Jury Note.\n\nThe answer to the first part of the jury's question is an unequivocal no. The jury instruction for the second element of Count Four charged that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell “knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.” (Instr. No. 21 (emphasis added)). It was therefore not sufficient to satisfy this element if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico. Any sexual activity that occurred in New Mexico could not, by definition, be a violation of New York law.\n\nAccordingly, the Jury Note revealed that the jury had a fundamental misunderstanding of the intent requirement under Count Four. The jury needed to be given a supplemental instruction clarifying that to convict under Count Four, they needed to find that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York and that any sexual activity that occurred in New Mexico, while it was potentially relevant evidence, could not have violated New York law. The Court's decision to simply refer the jury to the existing jury instruction for the second element of Count Four did nothing to cure the misunderstanding because the jury already had those instructions and was still evidently confused about the proof necessary to satisfy Count Four. As\n\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00010274",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under the second element of Count Four, can the defendant be found guilty if the defendant's intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico and if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight from New Mexico, but not the flight to New Mexico?",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Hence, the question posed by the Jury Note contained two parts. The jury wanted to know if it was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four if it found (1) that Ms. Maxwell's intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, and (2) that Ms. Maxwell assisted with Jane's return flight from New Mexico, but not her flight to New Mexico. That is the straightforward, common sense reading of the Jury Note.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The answer to the first part of the jury's question is an unequivocal no. The jury instruction for the second element of Count Four charged that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell “knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.” (Instr. No. 21 (emphasis added)). It was therefore not sufficient to satisfy this element if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico. Any sexual activity that occurred in New Mexico could not, by definition, be a violation of New York law.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, the Jury Note revealed that the jury had a fundamental misunderstanding of the intent requirement under Count Four. The jury needed to be given a supplemental instruction clarifying that to convict under Count Four, they needed to find that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New York and that any sexual activity that occurred in New Mexico, while it was potentially relevant evidence, could not have violated New York law. The Court's decision to simply refer the jury to the existing jury instruction for the second element of Count Four did nothing to cure the misunderstanding because the jury already had those instructions and was still evidently confused about the proof necessary to satisfy Count Four. As",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010274",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 647",
      "Instr. No. 21",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010274"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell and a minor named Jane. The text discusses the jury's questions and the court's instructions regarding Count Four of the case."
}