DOJ-OGR-00014871.jpg
617 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
617 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document, likely a court opinion, discusses and rejects a defendant's claim of a 'constructive amendment' to their indictment. The court finds that the evidence presented by the Government, including a witness named Jane's testimony, and the jury instructions from the District Court, stayed within the 'core of criminality' of the charged offense. The court also affirms the District Court's handling of an ambiguous jury note, concluding it did not lead to an improper conviction.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane |
Mentioned as providing testimony for the Government.
|
|
| Mollica | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988)'.
|
| D’Amelio | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012)'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Presented evidence and summation at trial.
|
| District Court | government agency |
Provided jury instructions and correctly directed the jury regarding an ambiguous note.
|
| Ionia Mgmt. S.A. | company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A., 555 F.3d 303, 310 (2d Cir. 2009)'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A trial where the Government presented evidence, including Jane's testimony, and the jury was instructed by the District Court.
District Court
Key Quotes (3)
"given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial."Source
— United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A.
(Quoted to support the principle that flexibility in proof is permitted as long as the defendant has notice of the core crime.)
DOJ-OGR-00014871.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]he core of criminality of an offense involves the essence of a crime, in general terms; the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime falls outside that purview."Source
— D’Amelio
(Quoted to define the 'core of criminality' in the context of a constructive amendment claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00014871.jpg
Quote #2
"accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding"Source
— District Court
(A partial quote describing the jury instruction given by the District Court regarding Count Four.)
DOJ-OGR-00014871.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,542 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 178-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 21 of 26
likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.”39 A constructive amendment requires reversal.40
We cannot conclude that a constructive amendment resulted from the evidence presented by the Government—namely, Jane’s testimony—or that it can be implied from the jury note. We have permitted significant flexibility in proof as long as a defendant was “given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.”41 In turn, “[t]he core of criminality of an offense involves the essence of a crime, in general terms; the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime falls outside that purview.”42
We agree with the District Court that the jury instructions, the evidence presented at trial, and the Government’s summation captured the core of criminality. As the District Court noted, while the jury note was ambiguous in one sense, it was clear that it referred to the second element of Count Four of the Indictment. Therefore, the District Court correctly directed the jury to that instruction, which “accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding
---
39 United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988).
39 United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988).
40 See United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
41 United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A., 555 F.3d 303, 310 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted).
42 D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 418 (internal quotation marks omitted).
21
DOJ-OGR-00014871
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document