DOJ-OGR-00021733.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page86 of 93 73 requesting instead a series of instructions that were “unresponsive, “redundant,” and “legally inaccurate.” (A.388-89). See Rommy, 506 F.3d at 126 (court re- sponding to jury note “is not required to reference spe- cific arguments advanced or defenses raised by counsel in urging particular outcomes’). Judge Nathan’s re- sponse to the jury note was sound and did not con- structively amend the Indictment. Maxwell’s contrary view rests on extensive specu- lation about “which flights and evidence the jury was referencing in the note.” (A.386). The trial included, among other evidence, testimony by Jane about “tak- ing numerous flights both on Epstein’s private plane and on commercial carriers.” (A.386). Maxwell ignores that evidence, focusing on a specific trip referenced in the flight logs. (Br.78-79). Even if Maxwell correctly identified the flight at issue, it still betrayed no jury confusion. The origin of that trip was New York, and the jury’s focus was on the “return flight”’—which it could have inferred was a flight to New York, where Maxwell intended Jane to engage in sexual activity. Her view also rests on adopting one specific reading of a note that, as Judge Nathan explained, was “decid- edly ambiguous as to the precise legal question being asked” (A.386). See Rommy, 506 F.3d at 126 (district court “enjoys considerable discretion in construing the scope of a jury inquiry”). Maxwell herself initially un- derstood the note to be about “aiding and abetting” li- ability, and whether sexual activity was a sufficiently “‘significant or motivating purpose’ for the travel.” (A.387); see United States v. Kim, 471 F. App’x 82, 84 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirming jury instructions that DOJ-OGR-00021733