DOJ-OGR-00020998.jpg
662 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
662 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing that analyzes whether two criminal counts (Count Three and Count Five) are multiplicitous, meaning they charge the same crime. The court concludes that because the Government presented the case as a single, broad conspiracy involving the Defendant and Epstein, the counts are indeed multiplicitous. To avoid double jeopardy, the court rules that it will only impose judgment on one of the counts (Count Three).
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, which presented a theory of a singular conspiracy to the jury.
|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned in the case citation "Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985)".
|
| Court | Judicial body |
The judicial body making the ruling on the multiplicitous counts, referred to as "the Court".
|
Timeline (1 events)
The Government presented its case to the jury, arguing a theory of a singular, decade-long conspiracy by the Defendant and Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls.
Key Quotes (6)
"several additional factors . . . not directly addressed in Korfant . . . further point toward a finding of double jeopardy,"Source
— Unspecified Court (from a prior ruling)
(A statement from a previous case explaining factors that support a finding of double jeopardy.)
DOJ-OGR-00020998.jpg
Quote #1
"the fact that the Government, in its opening and closing arguments, presented both cases to the jury as broad conspiracies of an essentially identical nature."Source
— Unspecified Court (from 356 F.3d at 197)
(A specific factor cited from a previous case that points toward double jeopardy, which the current court finds applicable.)
DOJ-OGR-00020998.jpg
Quote #2
"playbook"Source
— Government (attributed)
(Describing the common method the Defendant allegedly used in a conspiracy.)
DOJ-OGR-00020998.jpg
Quote #3
"over and over and over again,"Source
— Government (attributed)
(Describing the repetitive nature of the Defendant's alleged actions.)
DOJ-OGR-00020998.jpg
Quote #4
"scheme"Source
— Government (attributed)
(A term used by the Government to refer to the singular conspiracy to abuse all victim witnesses.)
DOJ-OGR-00020998.jpg
Quote #5
"If the jury convicts on more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant’s right not to suffer multiple punishments for the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts."Source
— Court (citing Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355)
(Explaining the legal remedy for a conviction on multiplicitous counts.)
DOJ-OGR-00020998.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,257 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page172 of 221
A-372
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 45
A-372
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 45
first explained that applying the Korfant factors led to the conclusion that successive
prosecutions for conspiracies to distribute marijuana were barred by double jeopardy, but then
continued, stating that “several additional factors . . . not directly addressed in Korfant . . . further
point toward a finding of double jeopardy,” namely, “the fact that the Government, in its opening
and closing arguments, presented both cases to the jury as broad conspiracies of an essentially
identical nature.” 356 F.3d at 197. The same is true here. As explained above, the
Government’s opening statement and closing arguments presented a theory of a singular
conspiracy, highlighting: The degree of similarity between each victim witness’s experience
over a decade; the common “playbook” that the Defendant ran “over and over and over again,”
Trial Tr. at 2848; and the tight partnership between the Defendant and Epstein. And each of
those features was accompanied by references to a singular “scheme” to abuse all victim
witnesses. Id. at 36, 2843, 2853. At bottom, the case presented to the jury by the Government
was of a single decade-long conspiracy by the Defendant and Epstein to sexually abuse underage
girls. Having pursued such a broad and encompassing conspiracy, the Government cannot now
claim, and cannot carry its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that Count
Five was legally and factually distinct. See Maslin, 356 F.3d at 197.
Because Count Three and Count Five are multiplicitous, the proper remedy is to enter
judgment on only one of the counts. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 (“If the jury convicts on
more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant’s right not to suffer multiple punishments for
the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the
multiplicitous counts.” (citing Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985))). Because Count
Five is factually subsumed by Count Three, the Court will impose judgment only on Count
Three. The Court emphasizes, however, that finding Count Five to be multiplicitous “does not
prosecutions for conspiracies to distribute marijuana were barred by double jeopardy, but then
continued, stating that “several additional factors . . . not directly addressed in Korfant . . . further
point toward a finding of double jeopardy,” namely, “the fact that the Government, in its opening
and closing arguments, presented both cases to the jury as broad conspiracies of an essentially
identical nature.” 356 F.3d at 197. The same is true here. As explained above, the
Government’s opening statement and closing arguments presented a theory of a singular
conspiracy, highlighting: The degree of similarity between each victim witness’s experience
over a decade; the common “playbook” that the Defendant ran “over and over and over again,”
Trial Tr. at 2848; and the tight partnership between the Defendant and Epstein. And each of
those features was accompanied by references to a singular “scheme” to abuse all victim
witnesses. Id. at 36, 2843, 2853. At bottom, the case presented to the jury by the Government
was of a single decade-long conspiracy by the Defendant and Epstein to sexually abuse underage
girls. Having pursued such a broad and encompassing conspiracy, the Government cannot now
claim, and cannot carry its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that Count
Five was legally and factually distinct. See Maslin, 356 F.3d at 197.
Because Count Three and Count Five are multiplicitous, the proper remedy is to enter
judgment on only one of the counts. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 (“If the jury convicts on
more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant’s right not to suffer multiple punishments for
the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the
multiplicitous counts.” (citing Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985))). Because Count
Five is factually subsumed by Count Three, the Court will impose judgment only on Count
Three. The Court emphasizes, however, that finding Count Five to be multiplicitous “does not
15
DOJ-OGR-00020998
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document