DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 22 of a larger filing, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to define the high standard for proving such a variance, asserting that the defendant was not misled and their rights were not violated. The document concludes that, similar to a previous argument about constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts outside the scope of the indictment.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a case, discussing whether they were convicted of conduct subject to a grand jury's ind...
|
| Parker |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Parker, 903 F.2d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 1990)'.
|
|
| Salmonese |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 2003)'.
|
|
| 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'.
|
Key Quotes (5)
"uncertain whether [Maxwell] was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s indictment."Source
— Unnamed legal source/court
(Quoted to argue that it is not uncertain what Maxwell was convicted of.)
DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
Quote #1
"must establish that the evidence offered at trial differs materially from the evidence alleged in the indictment."Source
— Unnamed legal source/court
(Describing the requirement for a defendant to allege a variance between the indictment and trial evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
Quote #2
"that substantial prejudice occurred at trial as a result” of the variance."Source
— Unnamed legal source/court
(Describing what a defendant must show to prevail and win a reversal based on a variance.)
DOJ-OGR-00021899.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 defendant cannot prove they were prejudiced by a variance in evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00021899.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
(Cited in a footnote to support a legal argument, likely related to jury conduct or understanding.)
DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,732 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 121-2, 12/02/2024, 3637741, 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-00021899
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document