DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
671 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
671 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 70 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the applicable law regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' in criminal indictments. It cites several precedents, including United States v. Khalupsky and United States v. D'Amelio, to define the conditions under which trial evidence or jury instructions improperly alter the original charges brought by a grand jury. The document distinguishes between a constructive amendment, which modifies the essential elements of the offense, and a variance, where the indictment's terms are unchanged but the evidence proves different facts.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Khalupsky |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021)'.
|
|
| Dove |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Dove, 884 F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir. 2018)'.
|
|
| D'Amelio |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. D’Amelio, 693 F.3d 412, 416 (2d Cir. 2012)'.
|
|
| Lebedev |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 53 (2d Cir. 2019)'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Appears as a party in several case citations, such as 'United States v. Khalupsky'.
|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced as 'This Court' in the second paragraph, indicating the judicial body hearing the current case.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00021730'.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"A constructive amendment occurs when the charge upon which the defendant is tried differs significantly from the charge upon which the grand jury voted."Source
— United States v. Khalupsky
(Defining what constitutes a constructive amendment to an indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]o prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment."Source
— United States v. D’Amelio
(Detailing the requirements for a defendant to successfully claim a constructive amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
Quote #2
"the core of criminality"Source
— United States v. Lebedev
(A legal concept referring to the essential nature of a crime that a defendant must have notice of, even if proof at trial varies from the indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
Quote #3
"A variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence offered at trial proves facts materially different from those"Source
— Unnamed legal source
(Defining a 'variance' in a legal proceeding.)
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,718 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page83 of 93
70
B. Applicable Law
“A constructive amendment occurs when the
charge upon which the defendant is tried differs sig-
nificantly from the charge upon which the grand jury
voted.” United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293
(2d Cir. 2021). “Not every alteration of an indictment,
however, rises to the level of a constructive amend-
ment.” United States v. Dove, 884 F.3d 138, 146 (2d
Cir. 2018). Instead, “[t]o prevail on a constructive
amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that
the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the
presentation of evidence and jury instructions which
so modify essential elements of the offense that there is
a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have
been convicted of an offense other than that charged in
the indictment.” United States v. D’Amelio, 693 F.3d
412, 416 (2d Cir. 2012).
charge upon which the defendant is tried differs sig-
nificantly from the charge upon which the grand jury
voted.” United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293
(2d Cir. 2021). “Not every alteration of an indictment,
however, rises to the level of a constructive amend-
ment.” United States v. Dove, 884 F.3d 138, 146 (2d
Cir. 2018). Instead, “[t]o prevail on a constructive
amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that
the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the
presentation of evidence and jury instructions which
so modify essential elements of the offense that there is
a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have
been convicted of an offense other than that charged in
the indictment.” United States v. D’Amelio, 693 F.3d
412, 416 (2d Cir. 2012).
This Court has “consistently permitted significant
flexibility in proof, provided that the defendant was
given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at
trial.” United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 53 (2d
Cir. 2019). The “core of criminality” is “the essence of
a crime, in general terms,” but not “the particulars of
how a defendant effected the crime.” D’Amelio, 693
F.3d at 418. There is no constructive amendment
where the allegations in the indictment and the proof
at trial both relate to a “single set of discrete facts,” or
form “part of a single course of conduct” with the same
“ultimate purpose.” Id. at 419-21.
flexibility in proof, provided that the defendant was
given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at
trial.” United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 53 (2d
Cir. 2019). The “core of criminality” is “the essence of
a crime, in general terms,” but not “the particulars of
how a defendant effected the crime.” D’Amelio, 693
F.3d at 418. There is no constructive amendment
where the allegations in the indictment and the proof
at trial both relate to a “single set of discrete facts,” or
form “part of a single course of conduct” with the same
“ultimate purpose.” Id. at 419-21.
“A variance occurs when the charging terms of the
indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence offered
at trial proves facts materially different from those
indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence offered
at trial proves facts materially different from those
DOJ-OGR-00021730
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document