DOJ-OGR-00003131.jpg
705 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
705 KB
Summary
This legal document page outlines the applicable law concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically addressing multiplicitous charges. It defines a multiplicitous indictment as one that charges a single crime in multiple counts and cites several legal precedents (e.g., North Carolina v. Pearce, United States v. Chacko) to explain that a defendant cannot be punished multiple times for the same offense. The document clarifies the legal standard for a multiplicity claim and the procedural remedies courts should use to protect a defendant's rights.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pearce |
Mentioned in the case citation North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969).
|
|
| Chacko |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999).
|
|
| Jones |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006).
|
|
| Estrada |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003), which is quoted in the Jon...
|
|
| Josephberg |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Constitution | Legal framework |
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is cited as the basis for the legal argument.
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Cited as the court of jurisdiction for several precedent cases (Chacko, Jones, Estrada, Josephberg) and for clarifyin...
|
| District Courts | Court |
Mentioned as the courts that should not rule on multiplicity grounds until sentencing, as clarified by the Second Cir...
|
| United States | Government |
Appears as the plaintiff in several cited cases (United States v. Chacko, United States v. Jones, etc.).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case name North Carolina v. Pearce.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"protects against multiple punishments for the same offense."Source
— North Carolina v. Pearce
(Describing the function of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003131.jpg
Quote #1
"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed."Source
— United States v. Chacko
(Defining a multiplicitous indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003131.jpg
Quote #2
"A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, ‘unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law.’"Source
— United States v. Jones (quoting United States v. Estrada)
(Stating the condition required for a claim of multiplicity to be successful.)
DOJ-OGR-00003131.jpg
Quote #3
"[i]f the jury convicts on more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant’s right not to suffer multiple punishments for the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts."Source
— United States v. Josephberg
(Explaining the remedy for a conviction on multiplicitous counts to protect a defendant's rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00003131.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,070 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 197 of 239
a conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to entice minors to travel with the intent to commit an illegal sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). See Indictment ¶¶ 15-17. In other words, Count One and Count Three charge the defendant with agreeing to commit two separate and distinct federal crimes.
B. Applicable Law
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution “protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). Accordingly, a defendant cannot be sentenced for multiplicitous charges covering the same crime. “An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed.” United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (“A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, ‘unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law.’” (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a defendant does have a right not to be punished twice for the same crime. United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Accordingly, “[i]f the jury convicts on more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant’s right not to suffer multiple punishments for the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts.” Id. Similarly, where the judgment of conviction has already been entered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id.
The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court’s
170
DOJ-OGR-00003131
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document