DOJ-OGR-00020989.jpg
627 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
9
Events
9
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
627 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document details the legal framework used by the Second Circuit to determine if multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy, which is relevant to double jeopardy claims. It lists the eight "Korfant factors" and explains the burden-shifting process where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous claim, after which the burden shifts to the government to prove the conspiracies are distinct. The text relies heavily on citations to previous court cases to establish these legal standards.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Korfant |
Party in the legal case United States v. Korfant, which established the 'Korfant factors' test.
|
|
| Villa |
Party in the legal case United States v. Villa.
|
|
| Macchia |
Party in the legal case United States v. Macchia.
|
|
| Reiter |
Party in the legal case United States v. Reiter.
|
|
| Maslin |
Party in the legal case United States v. Maslin.
|
|
| Lopez |
Party in the legal case United States v. Lopez.
|
|
| DelVecchio |
Party in the legal case United States v. DelVecchio.
|
|
| Mallah |
Party in the legal case United States v. Mallah.
|
|
| Hernandez |
Party in the legal case United States v. Hernandez.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Named as a party in numerous court cases cited in the document (e.g., United States v. Korfant).
|
| Second Circuit | Judiciary |
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whose legal precedents and frameworks are being discussed.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | Judiciary |
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, a U.S. District Court, mentioned in a case citation.
|
Timeline (9 events)
1974
1985
1986
1988
1994
2004
2004
2009-10-01
United States v. Hernandez, No. 09-CR-625 (HB), 2009 WL 3169226, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009)
S.D.N.Y.
2018
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Hernandez.
|
Relationships (9)
The document cites the legal case United States v. Korfant.
The document cites the legal case United States v. Villa.
The document cites the legal case United States v. Macchia.
The document cites the legal case United States v. Reiter.
The document cites the legal case United States v. Maslin.
The document cites the legal case United States v. Lopez.
The document cites the legal case United States v. DelVecchio.
The document cites the legal case United States v. Mallah.
The document cites the legal case United States v. Hernandez.
Key Quotes (3)
"no dominant factor or single touchstone” determines whether two allegedly distinct conspiracies “ʻappear in fact and in law the same.’"Source
— United States v. Macchia (quoting United States v. Reiter)
(Describing the application of the Korfant factors for determining if conspiracies are distinct.)
DOJ-OGR-00020989.jpg
Quote #1
"the Korfant list is not exhaustive, and every case must be assessed on its own terms . . . based on the entire record."Source
— United States v. Maslin
(Clarifying that the Korfant factors are a flexible guideline, not a rigid rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00020989.jpg
Quote #2
"by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are in fact two distinct conspiracies and that the defendant is not being placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime."Source
— United States v. Lopez
(Explaining the Government's burden of proof in the burden-shifting framework for conspiracy charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00020989.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,068 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page163 of 221
A-363
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 45
A-363
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 45
(summary order) (citing United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per
curiam)); United States v. Villa, 744 F. App’x 716, 720 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). Those
factors include:
(1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments; (2) the overlap of
participants; (3) the overlap of time; (4) similarity of operation; (5) the existence
of common overt acts; (6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or
location where overt acts occurred; (7) common objectives; and (8) the degree of
interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies.
United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Korfant, 771 F.2d at 662). In
applying the Korfant factors, “no dominant factor or single touchstone” determines whether two
allegedly distinct conspiracies “ʻappear in fact and in law the same.’” Id. at 668 (quoting United
States v. Reiter, 848 F.2d 336, 340 (2d Cir. 1988)). Moreover, “the Korfant list is not
exhaustive, and every case must be assessed on its own terms . . . based on the entire record.”
United States v. Maslin, 356 F.3d 191, 196 (2d Cir. 2004).
In assessing the evidence, the Second Circuit applies a burden-shifting framework. The
defendant carries the initial burden of making a non-frivolous showing that the two counts in fact
charge only one conspiracy. If met, the burden then shifts to the Government to show, “by a
preponderance of the evidence, that there are in fact two distinct conspiracies and that the
defendant is not being placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime.” United States v. Lopez, 356
F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing United States v. DelVecchio, 800 F.2d 21, 22
(2d Cir. 1986)); see also United States v. Mallah, 503 F.2d 971, 986 (2d Cir. 1974) (applying this
burden-shifting approach post-conviction); United States v. Hernandez, No. 09-CR-625 (HB),
2009 WL 3169226, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009).
curiam)); United States v. Villa, 744 F. App’x 716, 720 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). Those
factors include:
(1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments; (2) the overlap of
participants; (3) the overlap of time; (4) similarity of operation; (5) the existence
of common overt acts; (6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or
location where overt acts occurred; (7) common objectives; and (8) the degree of
interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies.
United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Korfant, 771 F.2d at 662). In
applying the Korfant factors, “no dominant factor or single touchstone” determines whether two
allegedly distinct conspiracies “ʻappear in fact and in law the same.’” Id. at 668 (quoting United
States v. Reiter, 848 F.2d 336, 340 (2d Cir. 1988)). Moreover, “the Korfant list is not
exhaustive, and every case must be assessed on its own terms . . . based on the entire record.”
United States v. Maslin, 356 F.3d 191, 196 (2d Cir. 2004).
In assessing the evidence, the Second Circuit applies a burden-shifting framework. The
defendant carries the initial burden of making a non-frivolous showing that the two counts in fact
charge only one conspiracy. If met, the burden then shifts to the Government to show, “by a
preponderance of the evidence, that there are in fact two distinct conspiracies and that the
defendant is not being placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime.” United States v. Lopez, 356
F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing United States v. DelVecchio, 800 F.2d 21, 22
(2d Cir. 1986)); see also United States v. Mallah, 503 F.2d 971, 986 (2d Cir. 1974) (applying this
burden-shifting approach post-conviction); United States v. Hernandez, No. 09-CR-625 (HB),
2009 WL 3169226, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009).
6
DOJ-OGR-00020989
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document