DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 22 of a filing dated September 17, 2024, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to establish the high standard required to prove such a variance and resulting prejudice. The document concludes that the evidence at trial did not prove facts different from those in the indictment, thereby refuting the defendant's claim.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the individual who was convicted, and whose case is being discussed regarding a potential variance betwe...
|
| Parker |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Parker'.
|
|
| Salmonese |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Salmonese'.
|
|
| Dove |
Named in the case citation 'Dove, 884 F.3d at 149'.
|
|
| Khalupsky |
Named in the case citation 'Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the cited cases 'United States v. Parker' and 'United States v. Salmonese'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of a violation of "New York law."
|
Key Quotes (5)
"uncertain whether [Maxwell] was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s indictment."Source
— Unnamed legal source
(Quoted to support the argument that it is not uncertain what Maxwell was convicted for.)
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
Quote #1
"must establish that the evidence offered at trial differs materially from the evidence alleged in the indictment."Source
— Unnamed legal source (from Dove case)
(Describes the requirement for a defendant to allege a variance between the indictment and trial evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
Quote #2
"that substantial prejudice occurred at trial as a result” of the variance."Source
— Unnamed legal source
(Describes the further requirement for a defendant to show prejudice to win a reversal based on a variance.)
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
Quote #3
"A defendant cannot demonstrate that he has been prejudiced by a variance where the pleading and the proof substantially correspond, where the variance is not of a character that could have misled the defendant at the trial, and where the variance is not such as to deprive the accused of his right to be protected against another prosecution for the same offense."Source
— Unnamed legal source (from Salmonese case)
(Details the conditions under which a defendant cannot prove they were prejudiced by a variance.)
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
Quote #4
"The trial judge is in the best position to sense whether the jury is able to proceed properly with its deliberations, and [ ] has considerable discretion in determining how to respond to communications indicating that the jury is experiencing confusion."Source
— Unnamed legal source (from United States v. Parker case)
(Cited in a footnote to explain the role and discretion of a trial judge regarding jury deliberations.)
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,732 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page22 of 26
a violation of New York law.”43 It is therefore not “uncertain whether [Maxwell] was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s indictment.”44
We also cannot conclude that the evidence at trial prejudicially varied from the Indictment. To allege a variance, a defendant “must establish that the evidence offered at trial differs materially from the evidence alleged in the indictment.”45 To prevail and win reversal, the defendant must further show “that substantial prejudice occurred at trial as a result” of the variance.46 “A defendant cannot demonstrate that he has been prejudiced by a variance where the pleading and the proof substantially correspond, where the variance is not of a character that could have misled the defendant at the trial, and where the variance is not such as to deprive the accused of his right to be protected against another prosecution for the same offense.”47
For reasons similar to the ones noted above in the context of the constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts
43 A-387; see United States v. Parker, 903 F.2d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 1990) (“The trial judge is in the best position to sense whether the jury is able to proceed properly with its deliberations, and [ ] has considerable discretion in determining how to respond to communications indicating that the jury is experiencing confusion.”)
44 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 2003).
45 Dove, 884 F.3d at 149
46 Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
47 Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 621-22 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294.
22
DOJ-OGR-00021816
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document