DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg

726 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 726 KB
Summary

This legal document, page 8 of a filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE dated April 29, 2022, analyzes the legal distinctions between two conspiracy charges, Count Three and Count Five. The author argues that despite being charged under the same statute, the counts are not multiplicitous because they have different statutory objectives, legal definitions (e.g., of a 'minor'), and required elements of intent, citing precedents like Macchia, Estrada, and Villa. The document refutes the Government's claim that a single distinguishing factor is dispositive in this analysis.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Macchia
Cited in a legal case precedent (Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669 and 668).
Korfant
Referenced in the 'Korfant factor', a legal test or standard.
Estrada
Cited in a legal case precedent (Estrada, 320 F.3d at 182).
Villa
Cited as a defendant in a legal case precedent (United States v. Villa).
Hernandez
Cited in a legal case precedent (Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226).

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
United States Government government agency
Referred to as 'the Government' and 'United States' in the context of the prosecution and federal law.
DOJ-OGR government agency
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00010374).

Timeline (2 events)

2022-04-29
Document 657 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
The document discusses the legal differences between two conspiracy charges, Count Three and Count Five, under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Government Defendant

Locations (2)

Location Context
Mentioned in the context of an offense against the United States.
Mentioned in a case citation, referring to the District of Connecticut.

Relationships (1)

The Government adversarial (legal) The Defendant
The document outlines the Government's legal arguments against the Defendant's 'multiplicity claim'.

Key Quotes (4)

"general level"
Source
— Unknown (quoted by the author of the document) (Describing the similarity between two counts before detailing their differences.)
DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg
Quote #1
"commit theft from an interstate shipment and to transport stolen property across state lines"
Source
— United States v. Villa case summary (Used as an example of a § 371 conspiracy.)
DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg
Quote #2
"sell stolen property"
Source
— United States v. Villa case summary (Used as an example of a separate conspiracy from the theft and transport of stolen property.)
DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg
Quote #3
"fatal"
Source
— The Government (The Government's suggestion that a single legal factor is 'fatal' to the Defendant's claim, which the court document refutes.)
DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg
Quote #4

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document