DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page82 of 93 69 the jury might convict based on Jane’s testimony that she was abused in New Mexico. (A.224-25). Maxwell asked Judge Nathan to instruct the jury as to the in- tent elements of Counts Two and Four, and add that “[ajn intent that Jane engage in sexual activity in any state other than New York cannot form the basis of these two elements of Counts Two and Four.” (A.229). Judge Nathan rejected Maxwell’s request both be- cause the jury did not inquire about Count Two and because the final sentence as “just wrong” in suggest- ing that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity outside of New York “may have no relevance.” (Tr.3149). As Judge Nathan explained, “This is the same discussion we've had a couple of times .... Sex- ual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17....” (Tr.3149-50). Judge Nathan repeated that she did “not know how to parse the jury’s question ex- actly,” but that her instruction directing the jury to the original charge included a reminder that “it’s a viola- tion of New York penal law that’s charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they’re considering.” (Tr.3150). Judge Nathan also pointed out that Max- well did not “seek to exclude” Jane’s testimony about New Mexico, or “seek a limiting instruction with re- spect to that testimony.” (Tr.3153). Judge Nathan added “I have no idea if that’s what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings,” noted that the de- fense had proposed an “incorrect” instruction, and con- cluded no more was required than sending the jury “back to the charge.” (Tr.3154). DOJ-OGR-00021729