DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the legal arguments concerning the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that it is not uncertain what conduct Maxwell was convicted for and that the evidence presented at trial did not prejudicially vary from the indictment. The text cites several legal precedents to define the high standards a defendant must meet to prove a prejudicial variance that would warrant a reversal of the conviction.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a case, discussing whether she was convicted of conduct subject to the grand jury's ind...
|
| Parker |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Parker'.
|
|
| Salmonese |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Salmonese'.
|
|
| Dove |
Named in the case citation 'Dove, 884 F.3d at 149'.
|
|
| Khalupsky |
Named in the case citation 'Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case citations 'United States v. Parker' and 'United States v. Salmonese'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the phrase 'a violation of New York law'.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell is identified as the defendant in a case where the United States is implicitly the prosecuting party, as shown in the case citations 'United States v. Parker' and 'United States v. Salmonese'.
Key Quotes (5)
"uncertain whether [Maxwell] was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s indictment."Source
— United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 2003)
(A legal standard being applied to Maxwell's case to determine if the conviction was proper.)
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
Quote #1
"must establish that the evidence offered at trial differs materially from the evidence alleged in the indictment."Source
— Dove, 884 F.3d at 149
(The requirement for a defendant to allege a variance between the indictment and trial evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
Quote #2
"that substantial prejudice occurred at trial as a result” of the variance."Source
— Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
(A further requirement for a defendant to show in order to win a reversal based on a variance.)
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
Quote #3
"A defendant cannot demonstrate that 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
— Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 621-22
(Defining the conditions under which a variance does not constitute prejudice to the defendant.)
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
Quote #4
"The trial judge is in the best position to sense whether the jury is able to proceed properly with its deliberations, and [ ] has considerable discretion in determining how to respond to communications indicating that the jury is experiencing confusion."Source
— United States v. Parker, 903 F.2d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 1990)
(A legal principle cited regarding the trial judge's role in managing jury deliberations.)
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,732 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page22 of 26
a violation of New York law.”43 It is therefore not “uncertain whether [Maxwell] was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s indictment.”44
We also cannot conclude that the evidence at trial prejudicially varied from the Indictment. To allege a variance, a defendant “must establish that the evidence offered at trial differs materially from the evidence alleged in the indictment.”45 To prevail and win reversal, the defendant must further show “that substantial prejudice occurred at trial as a result” of the variance.46 “A defendant cannot demonstrate that 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.”47
For reasons similar to the ones noted above in the context of the constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts
43 A-387; see United States v. Parker, 903 F.2d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 1990) (“The trial judge is in the best position to sense whether the jury is able to proceed properly with its deliberations, and [ ] has considerable discretion in determining how to respond to communications indicating that the jury is experiencing confusion.”)
44 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 2003).
45 Dove, 884 F.3d at 149
46 Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
47 Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 621-22 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294.
22
DOJ-OGR-00000023
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document