DOJ-OGR-00021141.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page94 of 113 flight logs, there were only two trips that Jane may have taken while she was under the relevant age of 17. The first from Palm Beach to New York (Teterboro) on November 11, 1996 (GX-662-R at 44) and the second from New York (Teterboro) to Santa Fe, New Mexico on May 9, 1997, both when Jane was 16 (GX- 662-R at 48). The critical difference between the two trips was that Maxwell was not a passenger on the first trip to New York but was a passenger on the second trip to New Mexico. Given the text of the Note, it is likely that the jurors 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. As a result, the jury began evaluating Maxwell’s involvement in the New Mexico trip to see if it supported a conviction under Count Four, which led to the question posed by the Jury Note. This is also consistent with the jury’s decision to acquit Maxwell on the substantive enticement offense (Count Two). The jury likely 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. Hence, the acquittal on Count Two. By contrast, the jury likely believed that if 79 DOJ-OGR-00021141