DOJ-OGR-00021006.jpg

651 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / legal opinion (united states district court)
File Size: 651 KB
Summary

This page contains a legal analysis from a court document (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the legal standards for 'variance' versus 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites Second Circuit precedents (Banki, Rigas, Bastian, Salmonese, etc.) to establish that a defendant must prove substantial prejudice to reverse a conviction based on a variance claim. The text concludes by noting the Defendant is bringing a motion pursuant to Rule 33 to vacate judgment and grant a new trial.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Referred to as 'the Defendant' or 'she' in the text. Identified via Case No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
Alison J. Nathan Judge
Presiding judge identified by initials 'AJN' in case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
United States District Court
Venue of the filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330)
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Referenced multiple times in case citations (2d Cir.)
Department of Justice
Inferred from Bates stamp DOJ-OGR

Timeline (1 events)

2022-04-29
Filing of Document 657
SDNY
Defendant Court

Relationships (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell Legal Adversary United States Government
Defendant vs Prosecution in Case 1:20-cr-00330

Key Quotes (4)

"the defendant must show that 'the challenged evidence or jury instructions tied a defendant’s conviction to behavior entirely separate from that identified in the indictment.'"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021006.jpg
Quote #1
"a constructive amendment of the indictment is considered to be a per se violation of the grand jury clause, while a defendant must show prejudice in order to prevail on a variance claim."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021006.jpg
Quote #2
"when a defendant has sufficient notice of the Government’s theory at trial, she cannot claim that she was unfairly or substantially prejudiced."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021006.jpg
Quote #3
"the Court bears in mind that the Defendant brings her motion pursuant to Rule 33"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021006.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