DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg
765 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
765 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing from February 25, 2022, presents the prosecution's argument against the defendant's claim of a constructive amendment to their indictment. The prosecution asserts that the S2 Indictment for Mann Act offenses was consistent with the evidence presented and jury instructions, citing the D'Amelio case. A footnote further argues that even if one count was flawed, based on jury notes concerning Annie Farmer's testimony about abuse in New Mexico, it would not invalidate the other conspiracy counts, citing the Pfaff and Milstein cases.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| D'Amelio |
Cited in a legal case, D'Amelio, 683 F.3d at 424, to support the argument that the indictment and proof corresponded.
|
|
| Annie Farmer | Witness |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding her testimony about the Mann Act conspiracy counts and abuse in New Mexico.
|
| Jane |
Mentioned in a footnote, comparing the significance of her testimony to Annie Farmer's testimony.
|
|
| Pfaff |
Cited in a legal case, United States v. Pfaff, to support an argument about constructive amendment.
|
|
| Milstein |
Cited in a legal case, United States v. Milstein, regarding reversal on one count due to constructive amendment.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as the prosecuting party that put on evidence and had to prove intent.
|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned as having charged the jury and as the body being addressed in the legal argument.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as the plaintiff in the case citations United States v. Pfaff and United States v. Milstein.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The S2 Indictment charged the defendant with Mann Act offenses.
defendant
Government
Annie Farmer provided testimony regarding the Mann Act conspiracy counts and abuse in New Mexico.
New Mexico
The Court charged the jury that the Government had to prove the defendant's intent to violate a New York statute.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in relation to a state statute the defendant was accused of intending to violate.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the location of abuse that Annie Farmer testified about.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"[T]he allegations in the indictment and the proof and jury instructions ‘substantially correspond’ with each other, as they involve a single course of conduct."Source
— D'Amelio, 683 F.3d at 424
(Quoted to argue that there was no constructive amendment to the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg
Quote #1
"It therefore follows that [the defendant] was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s indictment, and there was no constructive amendment of the indictment."Source
— D'Amelio, 683 F.3d at 424
(Quoted to conclude the argument that the conviction was based on the original indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg
Quote #2
"Constructive amendment of the conspiracy charge would have warranted vacatur of that charge only; the remainder of the indictment would have stood."Source
— United States v. Pfaff, 407 F. App’x 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2010)
(Cited in a footnote to argue that even if one count were constructively amended, the other counts would not be affected.)
DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg
Quote #3
"as a result of prejudicial spillover"Source
— United States v. Milstein, 401 F.3d 53, 66 (2d Cir. 2005)
(Cited in a footnote to show a court rejected the argument that a constructive amendment on one count required reversal of others due to prejudicial spillover.)
DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,282 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 22 of 51
did not modify any essential element of the offense or permit conviction based on an entirely
different theory. Referring the jury back to the same instructions could not have caused a different
result.
different theory. Referring the jury back to the same instructions could not have caused a different
result.
The S2 Indictment charged the defendant with Mann Act offenses with an intent to engage
in sexual activity in violation of a New York statute. The Government put on evidence that the
defendant engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to violate that New York statute. The
Court charged the jury that the Government had to prove an intent to violate that New York statute
beyond a reasonable doubt. “[T]he allegations in the indictment and the proof and jury instructions
‘substantially correspond’ with each other, as they involve a single course of conduct.” D’Amelio,
683 F.3d at 424. “It therefore follows that [the defendant] was convicted of conduct that was the
subject of the grand jury’s indictment, and there was no constructive amendment of the
indictment.” Id.⁵
in sexual activity in violation of a New York statute. The Government put on evidence that the
defendant engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to violate that New York statute. The
Court charged the jury that the Government had to prove an intent to violate that New York statute
beyond a reasonable doubt. “[T]he allegations in the indictment and the proof and jury instructions
‘substantially correspond’ with each other, as they involve a single course of conduct.” D’Amelio,
683 F.3d at 424. “It therefore follows that [the defendant] was convicted of conduct that was the
subject of the grand jury’s indictment, and there was no constructive amendment of the
indictment.” Id.⁵
⁵ Even if the Court agreed with the defendant that the proof as to Count Four was constructively
amended, vacatur of the Mann Act conspiracy counts would be inappropriate. The jury note asked
specifically about Count Four, and suggested no confusion as to the conspiracy counts. Moreover,
the jury notes—which are of primary importance under the defendant’s theory—reveal that the
jury was focused on Annie Farmer’s testimony as to the Mann Act conspiracy counts (Tr. 3102-
07). And Annie’s testimony of abuse in New Mexico is no less significant than Jane’s. Finally, it
is entirely unclear how the jury’s erroneous understanding of the law relating to a substantive
transportation offense could prejudice the jury’s understanding for the enticement conspiracy
charge. See United States v. Pfaff, 407 F. App’x 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Constructive
amendment of the conspiracy charge would have warranted vacatur of that charge only; the
remainder of the indictment would have stood.”); United States v. Milstein, 401 F.3d 53, 66 (2d
Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (reversing on one count due to a constructive amendment but rejecting the
contention that it required reversal “as a result of prejudicial spillover”).
amended, vacatur of the Mann Act conspiracy counts would be inappropriate. The jury note asked
specifically about Count Four, and suggested no confusion as to the conspiracy counts. Moreover,
the jury notes—which are of primary importance under the defendant’s theory—reveal that the
jury was focused on Annie Farmer’s testimony as to the Mann Act conspiracy counts (Tr. 3102-
07). And Annie’s testimony of abuse in New Mexico is no less significant than Jane’s. Finally, it
is entirely unclear how the jury’s erroneous understanding of the law relating to a substantive
transportation offense could prejudice the jury’s understanding for the enticement conspiracy
charge. See United States v. Pfaff, 407 F. App’x 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Constructive
amendment of the conspiracy charge would have warranted vacatur of that charge only; the
remainder of the indictment would have stood.”); United States v. Milstein, 401 F.3d 53, 66 (2d
Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (reversing on one count due to a constructive amendment but rejecting the
contention that it required reversal “as a result of prejudicial spillover”).
21
DOJ-OGR-00009584
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document