DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
718 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
718 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 29, 2022, in which a court outlines the applicable law regarding constructive amendments to a grand jury indictment. The court explains that under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant can only be tried on the charges in the indictment, and details the legal standard for determining if the trial evidence or jury instructions improperly altered the "core of criminality" of the alleged crime. The court cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to support its analysis before denying the defendant's motion.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Wozniak | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Wozniak.
|
| Khalupsky | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Khalupsky.
|
| Salmonese | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Salmonese.
|
| Frank | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Frank.
|
| Gross | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Gross.
|
| Lebedev | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Lebedev.
|
| Daugerdas | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Daugerdas.
|
| D’Amelio | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. D’Amelio.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases, such as United States v. Wozniak.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Referred to as the court of appeals (2d Cir.) in multiple case citations.
|
| Court | government agency |
Refers to the judicial body authoring this document, which is disagreeing with and denying the Defendant's motion.
|
| Grand Jury | legal body |
Mentioned in the context of the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, which requires an indictment to be returned by a...
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location of the court in the citation for United States v. Gross (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017).
|
Relationships (2)
The document states, "the Court disagrees and denies the Defendant’s motion on this basis."
The document cites the legal case "United States v. Wozniak," indicating the United States was the prosecuting party against the defendant, Wozniak.
Key Quotes (5)
"a defendant has the right to be tried only on charges contained in an indictment returned by a grand jury."Source
— United States v. Wozniak
(Quoted to establish the fundamental rule under the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause.)
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
Quote #1
"[W]hen the charge upon which the defendant is tried differs significantly from the charge upon which the grand jury voted,” a constructive amendment occurs and reversal is required."Source
— United States v. Khalupsky
(Quoted to define what constitutes a constructive amendment that warrants reversal.)
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
Quote #2
"To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that either the proof at trial or the trial court’s jury instructions so altered an essential element of the charge that, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s indictment."Source
— United States v. Salmonese
(Quoted to explain the legal standard a defendant must meet to succeed on a constructive amendment claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
Quote #3
"core of criminality"Source
— United States v. Gross
(A legal concept the Court must delineate to determine if a constructive amendment occurred.)
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
Quote #4
"The “core of criminality . . . involves the essence of a crime, in general terms.”"Source
— United States v. Daugerdas
(Quoted to provide a definition for the legal concept of the "core of criminality".)
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,117 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 22 of 45
prejudicial variance. For the following reasons, the Court disagrees and denies the Defendant’s
motion on this basis.
motion on this basis.
A. Applicable Law
Under the Fifth Amendment’s Grand Jury Clause, “a defendant has the right to be tried
only on charges contained in an indictment returned by a grand jury.” United States v. Wozniak,
126 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 1997). “[W]hen the charge upon which the defendant is tried differs
significantly from the charge upon which the grand jury voted,” a constructive amendment
occurs and reversal is required. United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021).
only on charges contained in an indictment returned by a grand jury.” United States v. Wozniak,
126 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 1997). “[W]hen the charge upon which the defendant is tried differs
significantly from the charge upon which the grand jury voted,” a constructive amendment
occurs and reversal is required. United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021).
“To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that either
the proof at trial or the trial court’s jury instructions so altered an essential element of the charge
that, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the
subject of the grand jury’s indictment.” United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir.
2003) (quoting United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 (2d Cir. 1998)). In making this
determination, the Court first delineates the “core of criminality” of the crime alleged. United
States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017), aff’d
sub nom. United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2019). The “core of criminality . . .
involves the essence of a crime, in general terms.” United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212,
225 (2d Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 418
(2d Cir. 2012)). The Court then determines whether the evidence or jury instructions at trial
created a “substantial likelihood” that the defendant was not convicted of the crime described in
that core, but instead of a crime “distinctly different.” D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 416, 419. The
Second Circuit 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.
the proof at trial or the trial court’s jury instructions so altered an essential element of the charge
that, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the
subject of the grand jury’s indictment.” United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir.
2003) (quoting United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 (2d Cir. 1998)). In making this
determination, the Court first delineates the “core of criminality” of the crime alleged. United
States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017), aff’d
sub nom. United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2019). The “core of criminality . . .
involves the essence of a crime, in general terms.” United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212,
225 (2d Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 418
(2d Cir. 2012)). The Court then determines whether the evidence or jury instructions at trial
created a “substantial likelihood” that the defendant was not convicted of the crime described in
that core, but instead of a crime “distinctly different.” D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 416, 419. The
Second Circuit 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.
22
DOJ-OGR-00010388
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document