DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
643 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
643 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 29, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, which was made at the close of the Government's case. The text outlines the legal standard for such a motion, citing numerous precedents that require the court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ansaldi |
Cited in a legal case, Ansaldi, 372 F.3d at 125.
|
|
| Pugh |
Cited in a legal case, United States v. Pugh, 945 F.3d 9, 19.
|
|
| Jackson |
Cited in a legal case, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318.
|
|
| Eppolito |
Quoted in the Pugh case citation, Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 45.
|
|
| Johnson |
Cited in a legal case, Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362.
|
|
| Zhong |
Cited in a legal case, United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536, 560.
|
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the Rule 29 motion for acquittal, which the Court denies.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
Mentioned throughout as the body denying the Defendant's motion and interpreting legal standards.
|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited cases, such as United States v. Pugh and United States v. Zhong.
|
| Government | government agency |
Referred to as the opposing party to the Defendant, whose case had just closed.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The Defendant made a Rule 29 application for acquittal with respect to every count in the S2 indictment, specifically addressing Counts One and Two.
Court
Relationships (2)
The Defendant made a Rule 29 motion, which the Court denied.
The Defendant is arguing against the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Government in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (7)
"as a matter of law, the jury found the same thing twice."Source
— Ansaldi, 372 F.3d at 125
(Used to explain the high bar for overturning factual findings made by a jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
Quote #1
"[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction."Source
— Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a)
(Quoting the text of Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.)
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
Quote #2
"[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be . . . to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."Source
— Jackson v. Virginia
(Establishing the legal standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence for a conviction.)
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
Quote #3
"The court must make that determination with the evidence against a particular defendant, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the government."Source
— Pugh, 945 F.3d at 19
(Detailing how a court must review evidence when considering a motion for acquittal.)
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
Quote #4
"the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."Source
— Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319
(Further defining the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
Quote #5
"with respect to every count in the S2 indictment,"Source
— The Defendant
(Describing the scope of the Defendant's Rule 29 application.)
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
Quote #6
"confine[d] [her] comments to address specifically Counts One and Two."Source
— The Defendant
(Describing the specific focus of the Defendant's arguments in her Rule 29 application.)
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,207 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page173 of 221
A-373
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 16 of 45
A-373
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 16 of 45
overturn any of the factual findings made by the jury” —it means only that, “as a matter of law, the jury found the same thing twice.” Ansaldi, 372 F.3d at 125. Or, in this case, three times.
II. The Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion.
The Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support any of her five counts of conviction, and, therefore, the Court should enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 29 provides, in relevant part, that “[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a); United States v. Pugh, 945 F.3d 9, 19 (2d Cir. 2019). “[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be . . . to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). “The court must make that determination with the evidence against a particular defendant, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the government.” Pugh, 945 F.3d at 19 (cleaned up) (quoting Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 45). Under this inquiry, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362 (1972)); United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536, 560 (2d Cir. 2022).
At the close of the Government’s case, the Defendant made her Rule 29 application “with respect to every count in the S2 indictment,” but “confine[d] [her] comments to address specifically Counts One and Two.” Trial Tr. at 2266. The Court denied the motion. Id. at 2274.
II. The Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion.
The Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support any of her five counts of conviction, and, therefore, the Court should enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 29 provides, in relevant part, that “[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a); United States v. Pugh, 945 F.3d 9, 19 (2d Cir. 2019). “[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be . . . to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). “The court must make that determination with the evidence against a particular defendant, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the government.” Pugh, 945 F.3d at 19 (cleaned up) (quoting Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 45). Under this inquiry, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362 (1972)); United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536, 560 (2d Cir. 2022).
At the close of the Government’s case, the Defendant made her Rule 29 application “with respect to every count in the S2 indictment,” but “confine[d] [her] comments to address specifically Counts One and Two.” Trial Tr. at 2266. The Court denied the motion. Id. at 2274.
16
DOJ-OGR-00020999
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document