DOJ-OGR-00020853.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 22-1426, Document 58_02/28/2023, 3475901, Page27 of 221
A-227
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 5 of 7
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 27, 2021
Page 5
a curative instruction. Moreover, because the same issues arise with respect to the substantive
enticement offense charged in Count Two, the Court must give the same instruction as to Count
Two as well.!
Supplemental Jury Instruction
Second, we believe that the Court’s response to the jury note was substantively incorrect
and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. “A jury’s interruption of its deliberations ‘to seek further
explanation of the law’ is a ‘critical moment in a criminal trial’; and [the Second Circuit] therefore
ascribe[s] ‘crucial importance’ to a ‘completely accurate statement by the judge’ at that moment.”
United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lefkowitz,
284 F.2d 310, 314 (2d Cir. 1960)). “Instructions are erroneous if they mislead the jury as to the
correct legal standard or do not adequately inform the jury of the law.” Hudson v. New York City,
271 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2001). Reversal is “required where, based on a review of the record as a
whole, the error was prejudicial or the charge was highly confusing.” Kopstein, 759 F.3d at 172;
see also id. (“A charge that appears likely to have left the jury ‘highly confused’ may, on that
ground alone, be reversed.” (quoting Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. One 25,900 Square Foot More
or Less Parcel of Land, 766 F.2d 685, 688 (2d Cir. 1985) (“A charge that appears likely to have
left the jury ‘highly confused’ may, on that ground alone, be reversed.”’))). “Even if an initial
1 The defense notes that the object of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three is a violation of the same
New York statute. While we do not contest that alleged sexual activity that occurred in other states can be evidence of
those conspiracies, the jury cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on those counts without finding that she acted with the intent
that someone under the age of 17 would engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New
York law.
2068538.1
DOJ-OGR-00020853
Extracted Information
Document Details
| Filename | DOJ-OGR-00020853.jpg |
| File Size | 629.7 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 94.4% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,189 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-03 20:04:11.199261 |