DOJ-OGR-00021726.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page79 of 93 66 not constitute “extraneous” information. Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 51-52 (2014) (rejecting party’s attempt to use the “extraneous” information exception to establish that a juror should have been excluded un- der McDonough based on his personal experiences). POINT IV The District Court’s Response to a Jury Note Did Not Constructively Amend the Indictment At all times the Government consistently argued that Maxwell enticed and transported Jane to New York with the intent that Jane engage in illegal sexual activity, and that Maxwell conspired to do so regarding Jane and the other victims. That is the issue Judge Nathan instructed the jury to resolve, and that is the criminal conduct charged in Counts Three and Four of the Indictment. Accordingly, no constructive amend- ment or variance occurred. A. Relevant Facts Counts Three and Four charged Maxwell with ar- ranging for Jane’s transportation to New York with the intent that Jane would engage in sex acts with Ep- stein, in violation of New York state law, and with a conspiracy to transport minors to New York for the same purpose. (A.127-30). At trial, the Government marshalled evidence that Maxwell transported Jane to New York, and aided and abetted Epstein in doing so, with the intent that Jane engage in sexual activity there. That evidence included detailed testimony from Jane about Epstein’s New York residence (Tr.316-19) DOJ-OGR-00021726