DOJ-OGR-00010271.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page5of24 Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Post- Trial Motions (““Motion” or “Mot.”). I. The Court’s Response to the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15) Was Erroneous and Resulted in a Constructive Amendment/Variance. As the government states in its Opposition to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion (“Opp.”), the parties agree that the Mann Act offenses for which Ms. Maxwell was convicted required the following proof of intent: that Ms. Maxwell “knowingly transported Jane with the intent that Jane engage in criminal sexual activity in New York” (Count Four) and that she “conspir[ed] to entice and transport minors in interstate commerce with the intent that they engage in criminal sexual activity in New York” (Counts One and Three). (Opp. at 6 (emphasis added)). Stated differently, the government agrees that if the jury found that Ms. Maxwell intended for Jane or the other victims of the Mann Act conspiracies to engage in sexual activity in some place other than New York, such as New Mexico, that would not be sufficient, by itself, to convict Ms. Maxwell of the Mann Act counts. (Opp. at 6-7 (“As the defendant correctly states ... ‘it was necessary to prove that [the defendant] enticed or caused underaged girls to travel to New York, or conspired to do the same, with the intent that they would engage in illegal sexual activity that violated New York law.’” (quoting Mot. at 1) (emphasis in original)). Similarly, the government does not dispute that, for purposes of a constructive amendment analysis, Ms. Maxwell’s intent to have Jane or the other victims of the Mann Act conspiracies engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New York law was an “essential element” of Counts One, Three, and Four, and part of the “core of criminality” for those charges. (Opp. at 6 (“That is the core of criminality charged in the $2 Indictment, and it is what the Government proved at trial and the Court captured in its jury instructions.”)). The only dispute is whether “the evidence or jury instructions at trial created a substantial likelihood DOJ-OGR-00010271