DOJ-OGR-00021137.jpg
587 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
587 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is a page from a court filing discussing a legal argument related to a criminal case. It outlines the requirements for a "constructive amendment claim," citing the precedent set in *United States v. D'Amelio*. The context is an appeal or motion by a defendant named Maxwell, who was charged under Count Four with transporting a person named Jane across state lines for sexual activity in violation of New York Penal Law.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in Count Four, accused of knowingly transporting Jane in interstate commerce for sexual ac...
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned as the person allegedly transported by Maxwell for the purpose of sexual activity.
|
| D'Amelio | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation "United States v. D'Amelio" which sets a precedent for constructive amendment claims.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | government agency |
Cited as "2d Cir. 2012" in the case citation for United States v. D'Amelio.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of "New York law" and "New York Penal Law, Section 130.55".
|
Key Quotes (4)
"that Maxwell knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with the intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law,"Source
— Jury Charge
(Describing the second element of Count Four in the Jury Charge.)
DOJ-OGR-00021137.jpg
Quote #1
"New York Penal Law, Section 130.55, sexual abuse in the third degree."Source
— Jury Charge
(Specifying the criminal offense under New York law related to Count Four.)
DOJ-OGR-00021137.jpg
Quote #2
"the terms of the indictment are, in effect, altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment."Source
— United States v. D'Amelio
(Defining the standard a defendant must demonstrate to prevail on a constructive amendment claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00021137.jpg
Quote #3
"given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial."Source
— United States v. D'Amelio
(Stating a requirement for the defendant in a trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00021137.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,371 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page90 of 113
A238
The second element of Count Four in the Jury Charge to which the jury plainly refers requires “that Maxwell knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with the intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law,” namely, “New York Penal Law, Section 130.55, sexual abuse in the third degree.” Tr. 3037:10-19
B. Applicable Law
To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that “the terms of the indictment are, in effect, altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.” United States v. D'Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 416 (2d Cir. 2012). A constructive amendment is a per se violation of the Grand Jury Clause requiring reversal. Id at 417.
The defendant must be “given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.” Id. “After identifying the core of criminality, a court must then determine whether the evidence or jury instructions at trial created a substantial likelihood that the defendant was not convicted of the crime described in that
75
DOJ-OGR-00021137
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document