DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
648 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
648 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of the jury convicting Ms. Maxwell based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, which would be a per se violation of her constitutional rights. The argument is supported by citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | The Honorable |
Recipient of the document, presumably the presiding judge.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the legal argument, who could be convicted by the jury.
|
| Gross | Defendant |
A party in the cited case United States v. Gross.
|
| D'Amelio | Defendant |
A party in the cited case United States v. D'Amelio.
|
| Wozniak | Defendant |
A party in the cited case United States v. Wozniak.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
Mentioned as having recently explained the law on constructive amendment and variance.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Southern District of New York, the court where the United States v. Gross case was decided.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited for its legal precedents.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1997
A ruling was made in the case of United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d 105, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1997).
Second Circuit
2012
A ruling was made in the case of United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
Second Circuit
2017-10-18
A ruling was made in the case of United States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017).
S.D.N.Y.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, a federal judicial district.
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan concerning the trial of the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (5)
"To 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 charged 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. Gross
(Quoted to define the legal standard for a constructive amendment claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
Quote #1
"Because the doctrine of constructive amendment protects a defendant’s Grand Jury Clause rights, a constructive amendment constitutes a ‘per se violation’ of the defendant’s constitutional rights— i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a specific showing of prejudice."Source
— United States v. Gross
(Quoted to explain that a constructive amendment is a per se violation of rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
Quote #2
"consistently permitted significant flexibility"Source
— Second Circuit
(Describing the Second Circuit's approach to how the government proves an alleged crime.)
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
Quote #3
"given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial."Source
— Id. (cleaned up)
(Stating the requirement for what a defendant must be notified of.)
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
Quote #4
"[A]lthough an indictment ‘drawn in general terms’ may articulate a broad core of criminality, an indictment that is drawn in specific terms may be read to specify a narrower set of facts—such that the proof of completely distinct facts at trial could lead to a constructive amendment."Source
— United States v. Wozniak
(Quoted to explain how a specific indictment can lead to a constructive amendment if different facts are proven at trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,869 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 2 of 7
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 27, 2021
Page 2
December 27, 2021
Page 2
Constructive Amendment / Variance
First, without further instruction, the jury could convict Ms. Maxwell based on a constructive amendment and/or prejudicial variance from the S2 Indictment. The Court has recently explained the law on constructive amendment and variance. “To 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 charged 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. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017) (cleaned up). “Because the doctrine of constructive amendment protects a defendant’s Grand Jury Clause rights, a constructive amendment constitutes a ‘per se violation’ of the defendant’s constitutional rights— i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a specific showing of prejudice.” Id. (quoting United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
Although the Second Circuit has “consistently permitted significant flexibility” in how the government proves the crime alleged, the defendant must be “given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.” Id. (cleaned up). “[A]lthough an indictment ‘drawn in general terms’ may articulate a broad core of criminality, an indictment that is drawn in specific terms may be read to specify a narrower set of facts—such that the proof of completely distinct facts at trial could lead to a constructive amendment.” Id. (quoting United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d 105, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1997)).
2068538.1
DOJ-OGR-00008791
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document