DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg
737 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
737 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, distinguishes between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment, citing several legal precedents. It argues that the central element, or 'core of criminality,' of the Mann Act charges against Epstein and Ms. Maxwell was a clear scheme to entice underage girls to travel to New York for the purpose of violating New York law.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Accused |
Mentioned as a party in a scheme with Ms. Maxwell to entice underage girls.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Accused |
Mentioned as a party in a scheme with Epstein to entice underage girls.
|
| Millstein |
Party in the cited case, United States v. Millstein.
|
|
| Miller |
Party in the cited case, United States v. Miller.
|
|
| Gross |
Party in the cited case, Gross, 2017 WL 4685111.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned as a party in the case citations 'United States v. Millstein' and 'United States v. Miller'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A scheme to entice or cause underage girls to travel to New York with the intent that they would engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law.
New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The destination to which underage girls were allegedly enticed to travel, and the jurisdiction whose law was intended...
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that the Indictment charged a scheme 'by Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to entice or cause underage girls to travel to New York'.
Key Quotes (4)
"behavior entirely separate from that identified in the indictment."Source
— Legal Precedent (Id.)
(Describing the standard for a defendant to prove a constructive amendment of an indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg
Quote #1
"When the trial evidence or the jury charge operates to ‘broaden [ ] the possible bases for conviction from that which appeared in the indictment,’ the indictment has been constructively amended."Source
— United States v. Millstein
(Stating the fundamental principle of constructive amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg
Quote #2
"[a] variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment."Source
— Gross, 2017 WL 4685111
(Defining a 'variance' in contrast to a 'constructive amendment'.)
DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg
Quote #3
"The “Core of Criminality” of the Mann Act Counts Was a Scheme to Entice or Cause Underaged Girls to Travel to New York with an Intent to Violate New York Law."Source
— Document Author (Section Heading)
(The main argument of section C of the document.)
DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,181 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 14 of 37
sufficient for the defendant to show simply that the proof at trial diverged from the allegations in the indictment. To establish a constructive amendment, the defendant must show that the evidence and jury instructions created a substantial likelihood that she was convicted for “behavior entirely separate from that identified in the indictment.” Id. (cleaned up).
The fundamental principle of constructive amendment is clear: “When the trial evidence or the jury charge operates to ‘broaden [ ] the possible bases for conviction from that which appeared in the indictment,’ the indictment has been constructively amended.” United States v. Millstein, 401 F.3d 53, 65 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 138 (1985) (emphasis omitted)).
In contrast to a constructive amendment, “[a] variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment.” Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *31 (cleaned up). A defendant alleging variance must show “substantial prejudice” to warrant reversal. Id. (cleaned up). “The determination of whether a variance between an indictment and the proof at trial is prejudicial turns on whether the variance infringes on the substantial rights that indictments exist to protect—to inform an accused of the charges against him so that he may prepare his defense and to avoid double jeopardy.” Id. (cleaned up).
C. The “Core of Criminality” of the Mann Act Counts Was a Scheme to Entice or Cause Underaged Girls to Travel to New York with an Intent to Violate New York Law.
There can be no serious dispute that the “core of criminality” of the Mann Act offenses charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment was a scheme by Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to entice or cause underage girls to travel to New York with the intent that they would engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law. The Indictment itself was clear on its face. The substantive Mann Act offenses (Counts Two and Four) specifically alleged in the “to
The fundamental principle of constructive amendment is clear: “When the trial evidence or the jury charge operates to ‘broaden [ ] the possible bases for conviction from that which appeared in the indictment,’ the indictment has been constructively amended.” United States v. Millstein, 401 F.3d 53, 65 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 138 (1985) (emphasis omitted)).
In contrast to a constructive amendment, “[a] variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment.” Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *31 (cleaned up). A defendant alleging variance must show “substantial prejudice” to warrant reversal. Id. (cleaned up). “The determination of whether a variance between an indictment and the proof at trial is prejudicial turns on whether the variance infringes on the substantial rights that indictments exist to protect—to inform an accused of the charges against him so that he may prepare his defense and to avoid double jeopardy.” Id. (cleaned up).
C. The “Core of Criminality” of the Mann Act Counts Was a Scheme to Entice or Cause Underaged Girls to Travel to New York with an Intent to Violate New York Law.
There can be no serious dispute that the “core of criminality” of the Mann Act offenses charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment was a scheme by Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to entice or cause underage girls to travel to New York with the intent that they would engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law. The Indictment itself was clear on its face. The substantive Mann Act offenses (Counts Two and Four) specifically alleged in the “to
9
DOJ-OGR-00008938
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document