File
647
Document 647
AI Analysis
Summary: Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the court's response to a jury note was erroneous and led to a constructive amendment/variance, as the jury was confused about the intent requirement for Count Four. They also argue that the conspiracy counts are multiplicitous because they are based on a single underlying criminal scheme.
Significance: This document is a reply memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys in support of her post-trial motions, arguing that the court's response to a jury note was erroneous and resulted in a constructive amendment/variance, and that the conspiracy counts are multiplicitous.
Key Topics:
Ghislaine Maxwell's post-trial motions
Constructive amendment/variance in jury instructions
Multiplicity of conspiracy counts
Key People:
- Ghislaine Maxwell - Defendant
- Christian R. Everdell - Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
- Jeffrey S. Pagliuca - Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
- Laura A. Menninger - Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
- Bobbi C. Sternheim - Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell