DOJ-OGR-00021732.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page85 of 93 72 Maxwell’s argument to the contrary rests entirely on her reading of the jury note. According to Maxwell, the note shows that the jury “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 Max- well was present for Jane’s trip to New Mexico.” (Br.79). This reading, she claims, is buttressed by the fact that the jury acquitted on Count Two, which, in her telling, shows that the jury “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.” (Br.79). Judge Nathan correctly rejected this argument. Judge Nathan found that the original jury instructions and the Government’s summation captured the core of criminality charged in the Indictment, focusing specif- ically on conduct directed at and sexual activity in New York. (A.382-85). Even if the note revealed that the jury were confused and wondered whether it could con- vict based on conduct in New Mexico, Judge Nathan’s response ameliorated that confusion. As Judge Nathan explained, she sent the jury back to the instruction, which “accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding a violation of New York Law.” (A.387). That was sufficient. See United States v. Rommzy, 506 F.3d 108, 126 (2d Cir. 2007) (court “enjoys considerable discretion” in “framing a response” to a jury note and “is only required to answer the particu- lar inquiries posed’). As Judge Nathan explained, Maxwell failed to propose a_ better response, DOJ-OGR- 00021732