DOJ-OGR-00021728.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page81 of 93 68 Four alleged that Maxwell knowingly transported Jane “with the intent that Jane engage in sexual ac- tivity for which any person can be charged with a crim- inal offense in violation of New York law.” (Tr.3037; see Tr.3035 (second element of Count Four requires proof of an intent to violate “New York law as alleged in the indictment”)). Judge Nathan also instructed the jury on one and only one predicate state offense: a vio- lation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. (Tr.3034, 3037). The instructions on Count Three incorporated this discus- sion of the elements of Count Four, and the only stat- ute identified was N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. (Tr.3049- 50, 3056-57). During deliberations, the jury sent the following note: Under Count Four, if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane’s return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to en- gage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element? (Tr.3126). The note led to a lengthy discussion, at the conclusion of which Judge Nathan determined she should refer the jury back to the jury charge on the second element of Count Four because the jury note was otherwise “too difficult to parse factually and le- gally.” (Tr.3126-40). That night, Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsid- eration of Judge Nathan’s response and raising the possibility of a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance because, in her view, the note showed that DOJ-OGR-00021728