This document is a legal filing from April 16, 2021, arguing that an indictment against a defendant is legally sufficient. It cites several legal precedents, including Russell v. United States and United States v. Pirro, to establish the standards for specificity in indictments. The author contends that the indictment in question meets these standards by laying out all essential elements of the crimes charged and that the defendant has provided no legal authority to suggest otherwise.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Russell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962)'.
|
| Pirro | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 2000)'.
|
| Stringer | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'See Stringer, 730 F.3d at 127'.
|
| Wey | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'See Wey, 2017 WL 237651 at *5'.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the legal cases 'Russell v. United States' and 'United States v. Pirro'.
|
| Second Circuit | court |
Cited as the court that 'has previously found that the failure to name a specific victim of fraud does not render an ...
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00003113'.
|
"specification of what statements are alleged to be false, and in what respect they are false, in charges of criminal falsity,"Source
"the subject matter of the congressional inquiry"Source
"where an indictment charges a crime that depends in turn on violation of another statute, the indictment must identify the underlying offense."Source
"depart from the usual sufficiency framework"Source
"cites no authority"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (2,207 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document