DOJ-OGR-00021734.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page87 of 93 74 prostitution must be a “significant or motivating pur- pose” of the interstate transportation). Maxwell only came to the theory she now advances after a lengthy discussion spanning ten pages of the transcript. (A.387). And that reading is far from clear: the jury’s question does not ask whether certain facts are suffi- cient for guilt; it asks whether Maxwell “can be found guilty” if a certain fact is true. Maxwell “can” be found guilty based in part on sexual activity occurring in New Mexico, which is probative of Maxwell’s intent and role in transporting Jane. That is a perfectly sen- sible question for the jury to ask—indeed, it was re- peatedly raised by defense counsel to Judge Nathan at trial. (See, e.g., Tr.3149). Setting aside the jury note, Maxwell’s position re- quires the jury to have reached a series of odd conclu- sions. Jane testified at length about her travel to New York and the ensuing sexual abuse there. It would make little sense for the jury to reject that testimony, and then conclude that Maxwell arranged the uniden- tified commercial return flight Maxwell now empha- sizes, for which there is no documentary evidence in the record, including no specific corroboration of Max- well’s role in arranging that flight. (Compare Br.79-80 (“[T]he jury likely believed that if they found Maxwell had some role in arranging Jane’s return flight from New Mexico, after the sexual abuse had already taken place, they could convict her on the substantive trans- portation count ....”) with Tr.3133 (defense argument that there is “no evidence” Maxwell arranged a return flight from New Mexico)). Maxwell suggests that the jury thought the flight records to be critical evidence, but the flight logs also demonstrate that Jane was DOJ-OGR- 00021734