DOJ-OGR-00021898.jpg
603 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
603 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document discusses whether a constructive amendment to an indictment occurred during a trial. The court concludes that neither the Government's evidence, including Jane's testimony, nor an ambiguous jury note constituted such an amendment. The court agrees with the lower District Court, finding that its jury instructions properly captured the "core of criminality" of the charged offense.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of her testimony, which was considered as a potential source of a constructive amendment.
|
| Mollica | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in footnote 39, citing the case United States v. Mollica.
|
| D’Amelio | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in footnotes 40 and 42, citing the case United States v. D’Amelio.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as the entity that presented evidence and summation at trial.
|
| District Court | Judiciary |
The lower court whose jury instructions and handling of a jury note are being reviewed and affirmed.
|
| Ionia Mgmt. S.A. | Company |
Mentioned in footnote 41, citing the case United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A criminal trial where the Government presented evidence and a summation, and the jury was given instructions.
District Court
Relationships (2)
The document states, "We agree with the District Court," indicating the appellate court is affirming the lower court's decision regarding the jury instructions.
The Government presented evidence and a summation at trial against the defendant.
Key Quotes (4)
"likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment."Source
— United States v. Mollica
(A quote from a cited case defining a condition that could lead to a constructive amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00021898.jpg
Quote #1
"given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial."Source
— United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A.
(A quote from a cited case explaining the standard for flexibility in proof, as long as the defendant has notice.)
DOJ-OGR-00021898.jpg
Quote #2
"[t]he core of criminality of an offense involves the essence of a crime, in general terms; the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime falls outside that purview."Source
— D’Amelio
(A quote from a cited case defining the concept of "core of criminality".)
DOJ-OGR-00021898.jpg
Quote #3
"accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding"Source
— District Court
(Describing the instruction the District Court correctly gave to the jury regarding Count Four.)
DOJ-OGR-00021898.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,535 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 121-2, 12/02/2024, 3637741, Page21 of 26
likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.”39 A constructive amendment requires reversal.40
We cannot conclude that a constructive amendment resulted from the evidence presented by the Government—namely, Jane’s testimony—or that it can be implied from the jury note. We have permitted significant flexibility in proof as long as a defendant was “given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.”41 In turn, “[t]he core of criminality of an offense involves the essence of a crime, in general terms; the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime falls outside that purview.”42
We agree with the District Court that the jury instructions, the evidence presented at trial, and the Government’s summation captured the core of criminality. As the District Court noted, while the jury note was ambiguous in one sense, it was clear that it referred to the second element of Count Four of the Indictment. Therefore, the District Court correctly directed the jury to that instruction, which “accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding
39 United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988).
40 See United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
41 United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A., 555 F.3d 303, 310 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted).
42 D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 418 (internal quotation marks omitted).
21
DOJ-OGR-00021898
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document