DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
725 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
725 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment. It cites numerous precedents to argue that for a variance to warrant reversal of a conviction, the defendant must demonstrate 'substantial prejudice'. The document concludes by noting that the Defendant has filed a motion under Rule 33 to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Banki |
Cited in the legal case 'Banki, 685 F.3d 99, 118 (2d Cir. 2012)'.
|
|
| Rigas |
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 228 (2d Cir. 2007)'.
|
|
| Bastian |
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Bastian, 770 F.3d 212, 223 (2d Cir. 2014)'.
|
|
| Danielson |
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Danielson, 199 F.3d 666, 670 (2d Cir. 1999)'.
|
|
| Salmonese |
Cited in the legal case 'Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 621'.
|
|
| Frank |
Cited in the legal case 'Frank, 156 F.3d at 337 n.5'.
|
|
| Khalupsky |
Cited in the legal case 'Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294'.
|
|
| Kaplan |
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Kaplan, 490 F.3d 119, 129–30 (2d Cir. 2007)'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in several cited court cases, such as 'United States v. Rigas'.
|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced as the body that the Defendant is petitioning and that is considering the motion.
|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of the 'Government's theory at trial'.
|
Key Quotes (5)
"the challenged evidence or jury instructions tied a defendant’s conviction to ‘behavior entirely separate from that identified in the indictment.’"Source
— United States v. Bastian
(Quoted to define the standard a defendant must meet to show a constructive amendment of an indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
Quote #1
"[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
— Salmonese (quoting Frank)
(Defining the legal concept of a 'variance' in a criminal case.)
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
Quote #2
"a constructive amendment of the indictment is considered to be a per se violation of the grand jury clause, while a defendant must show prejudice in order to prevail on a variance claim."Source
— Id. (quoting Frank)
(Distinguishing the legal outcomes and requirements for a 'constructive amendment' versus a 'variance'.)
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
Quote #3
"[A] defendant alleging variance must show ‘substantial prejudice’ to warrant reversal."Source
— Rigas
(Stating the legal standard for a defendant to succeed on a variance claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
Quote #4
"A defendant cannot demonstrate that [s]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
— Khalupsky (quoting Salmonese)
(Detailing the conditions under which a defendant cannot prove they were prejudiced by a variance.)
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,130 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 23 of 45
Banki, 685 F.3d 99, 118 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 228 (2d Cir. 2007)). Thus, the defendant must show that “the challenged evidence or jury instructions tied a defendant’s conviction to ‘behavior entirely separate from that identified in the indictment.’” United States v. Bastian, 770 F.3d 212, 223 (2d Cir. 2014) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Danielson, 199 F.3d 666, 670 (2d Cir. 1999)).
By contrast, “[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.” Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 621 (quoting Frank, 156 F.3d at 337 n.5). “Although the distinction between constructive amendment and variance may appear ‘merely one of degree,’ there is an important difference in outcome: ‘a constructive amendment of the indictment is considered to be a per se violation of the grand jury clause, while a defendant must show prejudice in order to prevail on a variance claim.’” Id. (quoting Frank, 156 F.3d at 337 n.5); see also Rigas, 490 F.3d at 226 (“[A] defendant alleging variance must show ‘substantial prejudice’ to warrant reversal.”). “A defendant cannot demonstrate that [s]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.” Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294 (quoting Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 621–22). Moreover, when a defendant has sufficient notice of the Government’s theory at trial, she cannot claim that she was unfairly or substantially prejudiced. See United States v. Kaplan, 490 F.3d 119, 129–30 (2d Cir. 2007).
Finally, the Court bears in mind that the Defendant brings her motion pursuant to Rule 33, which permits the Court to “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of
23
DOJ-OGR-00010389
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document