Government's Response Brief - Opposing Maxwell Appeal in Second Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 22-1426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether the District Court erred in admitting uncharged and highly prejudicial evidence of alleged sexual conduct spanning decades under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414, resulting in a trial dominated by inflammatory evidence that did not relate to the charged offenses. II. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by empaneling a juror who failed to disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair and impartial jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. III. Whether the defendant's convictions for sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 must be vacated because the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant acted with the requisite knowledge or intent. IV. Whether the Government's extensive and prejudicial pre-trial publicity, including a coordinated media campaign and the release of sealed discovery materials, deprived the defendant of her right to a fair trial. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted on December 29, 2021, following a four-week jury trial before the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge. Maxwell was convicted on five of six counts and acquitted on one count of enticement of a minor. On June 28, 2022, Judge Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 240 months' imprisonment — 20 years — followed by five years of supervised release. ARGUMENT I. THE ADMISSION OF RULE 413/414 EVIDENCE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR The District Court permitted the Government to introduce sweeping evidence of uncharged sexual conduct spanning from 1994 through 2004, far exceeding the temporal scope of the charged offenses. This evidence was cumulative, prejudicial, and invited the jury to convict based on propensity reasoning rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. II. JUROR MISCONDUCT REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL During post-trial proceedings, Juror No. 50 disclosed that he had been a victim of childhood sexual abuse — a fact he failed to disclose during voir dire despite being asked directly. The District Court denied the defense motion for a new trial, finding that the juror's failure was not deliberate. This finding was clearly erroneous. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial. Filed: February 28, 2023 Source: U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit — PACER Available at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63067297/united-states-v-maxwell/