DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
691 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
8
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
691 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The section titled "Applicable Law" argues that the Government is permitted to introduce evidence of acts committed in furtherance of a charged conspiracy. Citing multiple legal precedents, the document asserts that such acts are not considered 'other' acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), but are rather direct evidence of the conspiracy itself and are therefore admissible at trial.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned in the context of proving facts such as her state of mind.
|
|
| Dugue |
Named in the case citation United States v. Dugue.
|
|
| Quinones |
Named in a case citation.
|
|
| Gonzalez |
Named in a case citation.
|
|
| Carboni |
Named in a case citation.
|
|
| LaSpina |
Named in the case citation United States v. LaSpina.
|
|
| Townsend |
Named in the case citation United States v. Townsend.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Referenced as the entity offering proof of acts and seeking to prove them at trial.
|
| United States | government |
Named as a party in several case citations (e.g., United States v. Dugue).
|
Key Quotes (8)
"[A]n act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy is not an ‘other’ act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather, it is part of the very act charged."Source
— United States v. Dugue
(Quoted from a 2d Circuit summary order to support the argument that acts within a conspiracy are not subject to Rule 404(b) limitations.)
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
Quote #1
"While Rule 404(b) identifies various rationales . . . for which evidence of bad acts other than those charged in the indictment may be admitted at trial, the rule has no bearing on the admissibility of acts that are part of the charged crime."Source
— Quinones
(Quoted from a case to argue that Rule 404(b) does not apply to acts that are part of the crime itself.)
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
Quote #2
"not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime."Source
— Gonzalez
(A quote defining the scope of direct evidence in a legal context.)
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
Quote #3
"arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense"Source
— Carboni
(Part of a three-part definition of evidence that is included as direct evidence, not subject to Rule 404(b).)
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
Quote #4
"inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense"Source
— Carboni
(Part of a three-part definition of evidence that is included as direct evidence, not subject to Rule 404(b).)
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
Quote #5
"necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial."Source
— Carboni
(Part of a three-part definition of evidence that is included as direct evidence, not subject to Rule 404(b).)
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
Quote #6
"the Government need not set out with precision each and every act in furtherance of the conspiracy."Source
— United States v. LaSpina
(Quoted to argue that in a conspiracy case, the prosecution does not have to detail every single act.)
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
Quote #7
"where the Government must prove a conspiracy existed, evidence of acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is . . . direct evidence of the acts charged in the Indictment."Source
— United States v. Townsend
(Quoted to support the argument that acts furthering a conspiracy are considered direct evidence of the conspiracy charge.)
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
Quote #8
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,049 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 84
undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell’s state of mind.” (id. at 26-27).
B. Applicable Law
It is axiomatic that the Government may offer proof of acts included within the indictment. Those are the very acts the Government seeks to prove at trial. See United States v. Dugue, 763 F. App’x 93, 94 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) (“[A]n act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy is not an ‘other’ act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather, it is part of the very act charged.” (alterations and citation omitted)); Quinones, 511 F.3d at 308 (“While Rule 404(b) identifies various rationales . . . for which evidence of bad acts other than those charged in the indictment may be admitted at trial, the rule has no bearing on the admissibility of acts that are part of the charged crime.” (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted)).
As discussed above, see supra Section II, direct evidence is “not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.” Gonzalez, 110 F.3d at 942, see id. at 942 (rejecting a claim that the evidence fell under Rule 404(b)). It also includes actions or statements that (a) “arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,” (b) are “inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense,” or (c) are “necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.” Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44.
In addition, in a conspiracy case, “the Government need not set out with precision each and every act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. LaSpina, 299 F.3d 165, 182 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, “where the Government must prove a conspiracy existed, evidence of acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is . . . direct evidence of the acts charged in the Indictment.” United States v. Townsend,
44
DOJ-OGR-00005828
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document