DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg

743 KB

Extraction Summary

4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 743 KB
Summary

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.

People (4)

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'.

Organizations (3)

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'.

Timeline (3 events)

2021-04-16
Filing of Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
The document presents an argument that an indictment against a defendant is legally sufficient and satisfies the standard for sufficiency.
defendant
The document references a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of specificity.
defendant

Relationships (2)

Russell adversarial (legal) United States
Parties in the court case 'Russell v. United States'.
Pirro adversarial (legal) United States
Parties in the court case 'United States v. Pirro'.

Key Quotes (5)

"specification of what statements are alleged to be false, and in what respect they are false, in charges of criminal falsity,"
Source
— Legal precedent (Quoted as a standard for indictment specificity.)
DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg
Quote #1
"the subject matter of the congressional inquiry"
Source
— Legal precedent (Quoted as a standard for indictment specificity regarding charges of refusal to answer questions in a congressional inquiry.)
DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg
Quote #2
"where an indictment charges a crime that depends in turn on violation of another statute, the indictment must identify the underlying offense."
Source
— United States v. Pirro (Quoted as a legal standard for indictments involving multiple statutes.)
DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg
Quote #3
"depart from the usual sufficiency framework"
Source
— Wey (Quoted from a case where a defendant declined to depart from the standard framework for indictment sufficiency.)
DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg
Quote #4
"cites no authority"
Source
— Wey (Quoted from a case describing a defendant who failed to provide legal authority for their argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg
Quote #5

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,207 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 179 of 239
is the “specification of what statements are alleged to be false, and in what respect they are false, in charges of criminal falsity,” as well as “the subject matter of the congressional inquiry” for charges of “refusal to answer questions in a congressional inquiry.” Id. at 125-26 (citing, inter alia, Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962)). Similarly, “where an indictment charges a crime that depends in turn on violation of another statute, the indictment must identify the underlying offense.” United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 2000). When delineating the contours of this narrow category of crimes requiring additional specificity in an indictment, the Second Circuit has previously found that the failure to name a specific victim of fraud does not render an indictment inadequate under this standard. See Stringer, 730 F.3d at 127. In other words, absent some affirmative indication that additional specificity is required when charging a particular statute, there is no basis to conclude that an indictment need contain more than the elements of the offense and the approximate time and place of the alleged violation. See Wey, 2017 WL 237651 at *5 (declining to “depart from the usual sufficiency framework” where defendant “cites no authority” suggesting that the statutes at issue fall into the narrow exception to the general rule when considering motion to dismiss for lack of specificity).
B. Discussion
Because each of the four counts at issue—Counts One, Two, Three, and Four—clearly lays out each element of the charged offense and adequately informs the defendant of the accusations against her, the Indictment easily satisfies the standard for sufficiency. Tellingly, the defendant does not claim that any of these counts fails to allege an essential element or to track the language of the relevant statute. Nor could she, as the face of the Indictment not only contains each and every essential element of the crimes charged, but also goes beyond the basic requirements for pleading each charge by providing additional factual background. Instead, the defendant baldly
152
DOJ-OGR-00003113

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document