DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg
716 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
716 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum or brief, discussing the legal concept of "constructive amendment" in criminal law. It cites several Second Circuit precedents (D'Amelio, Roshko, Wozniak, Attanasio) to define the "core of criminality" that must be established in an indictment to provide proper notice to a defendant. The text outlines the legal test for determining if the evidence presented at trial improperly broadened the charges beyond what was specified in the indictment.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| D'Amelio |
Party in the cited case United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
|
|
| Roshko |
Party in the cited case United States v. Roshko, 969 F.2d 1, 5 (2d Cir. 1992).
|
|
| Wozniak |
Party in the cited case United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d 105, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1997).
|
|
| Attanasio |
Party in the cited case United States v. Attanasio, 870 F.2d 809, 816-17 (2d Cir. 1989).
|
|
| Gross |
Party in the cited case Gross, 2017 WL 4685111.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Referenced as the court that has set precedents in several cited cases (e.g., 2d Cir. 2012).
|
| United States | Government |
Party in several cited legal cases, such as United States v. D’Amelio.
|
Timeline (1 events)
The document discusses the legal standard for evaluating whether a constructive amendment to an indictment has occurred during a trial.
Relationships (4)
Cited in the case 'United States v. D’Amelio'.
Cited in the case 'United States v. Roshko'.
Cited in the case 'United States v. Wozniak'.
Cited in the case 'United States v. Attanasio'.
Key Quotes (6)
"consistently permitted significant flexibility"Source
— Second Circuit
(Describing the Second Circuit's approach to how the government proves a crime.)
DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg
Quote #1
"given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial."Source
— Second Circuit
(Stating a requirement for the defendant in a criminal case.)
DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg
Quote #2
"the object of a conspiracy constitutes an essential element of the conspiracy offense."Source
— Second Circuit (in United States v. Roshko)
(A well-settled legal principle regarding conspiracy charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg
Quote #3
"although an indictment ‘drawn in general terms’ may articulate a broad core of criminality, an indictment that is drawn in specific terms may be read to specify a narrower set of facts—such that the proof of completely distinct facts at trial could lead to a constructive amendment."Source
— Second Circuit (in United States v. Wozniak)
(Explaining how the specificity of an indictment affects the 'core of criminality'.)
DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg
Quote #4
"the specific means used by a defendant to effect his or her crime."Source
— Second Circuit (in D'Amelio)
(Clarifying what is not included in the 'essential elements' of a crime.)
DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg
Quote #5
"After identifying the core of criminality, a court must then determine whether the evidence or jury instructions at trial created a substantial likelihood that the defendant was not convicted of the crime described in that core, but of a crime ‘distinctly different’ from the one alleged."Source
— Gross (citing D'Amelio)
(Outlining the two-step process for determining if a constructive amendment occurred.)
DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,137 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 13 of 37
specific showing of prejudice.” Id. at *20 (quoting United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012)).
Although the Second Circuit has “consistently permitted significant flexibility” in how the government proves the crime alleged, the defendant must be “given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.” Id. (cleaned up). Accordingly, the first step in evaluating whether a constructive amendment has occurred is for the Court to define the “core of criminality” of the crimes alleged. Id. (cleaned up). It is well settled that “the object of a conspiracy constitutes an essential element of the conspiracy offense.” Id. (quoting United States v. Roshko, 969 F.2d 1, 5 (2d Cir. 1992). Moreover, “although an indictment ‘drawn in general terms’ may articulate a broad core of criminality, an indictment that is drawn in specific terms may be read to specify a narrower set of facts—such that the proof of completely distinct facts at trial could lead to a constructive amendment.” Id. (quoting United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d 105, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1997)). For example, specific overt acts alleged in the indictment may narrow the scope of the core of criminality because they “effect the object of the [charged] conspiracy.” United States v. Attanasio, 870 F.2d 809, 816-17 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). By contrast, general factual allegations in an indictment that are not part of the specific statutory allegations of a particular count may not limit the core of criminality of that offense. Id. Similarly, the “essential elements” do not include “the specific means used by a defendant to effect his or her crime.” D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 422.
“After identifying the core of criminality, a court must then determine whether the evidence or jury instructions at trial created a substantial likelihood that the defendant was not convicted of the crime described in that core, but of a crime ‘distinctly different’ from the one alleged.” Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *21 (citing D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 419-21). It is not
8
DOJ-OGR-00008937
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document