DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page15of51 Two. (Tr. 3149). The Court also rejected the defense’s proposed final sentence as “just wrong,” because it suggested that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity outside of New York “may have no relevance.” (/d.). As the Court explained, “This is the same discussion we’ ve had a couple of times .. . . Sexual 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, I think.” (Tr. 3149-50). The Court repeated that it did “not know how to parse the jury’s question exactly,” but that its instruction directing the jury to the original charge included a reminder that “it’s a violation of New York penal law that’s charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they’ re considering.” (Tr. 3150). The defense made a further record of its views, including that “travels to and from New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law.” (Tr. 3152-53). The Court explained that the defense suggestion was “‘wrong as a legal matter” because it suggests that the testimony was “irrelevant,” and the Court also pointed out that the defense did not “seek to exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction with respect to that testimony.” (Tr. 3153). The Court added that “[t]he reading of the note that you’ve suggested, I have no idea if that’s what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings, and what you’ve proposed, as you just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that’s why precisely we sent them back to the charge.” (Tr. 3154). The defendant renews her arguments now, urging that the jury note shows that “the jurors had the mistaken impression that it would be sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four 14 DOJ-OGR-00009577