DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
640 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / judicial opinion
File Size:
640 KB
Summary
This document is page 22 of a court order (Document 657) filed on April 29, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page outlines the 'Applicable Law' regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and 'prejudicial variance' or 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Second Circuit cases) to define the standards for determining if a defendant was convicted of a crime different from the one charged in the indictment. The Court denies the Defendant's motion on this basis.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the court's ruling regarding a motion on prejudicial variance (Contextually Ghislaine Maxwell based on cas...
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
The entity denying the defendant's motion and citing applicable law.
|
| Wozniak | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Wozniak regarding Fifth Amendment rights.
|
| Khalupsky | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Khalupsky regarding constructive amendment.
|
| Salmonese | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Salmonese regarding proof at trial.
|
| Frank | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Frank.
|
| Gross | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Gross regarding 'core of criminality'.
|
| Lebedev | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Lebedev.
|
| Daugerdas | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Daugerdas.
|
| D'Amelio | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. D'Amelio regarding 'substantial likelihood' of conviction for a different crime.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Referenced as '2d Cir.' in multiple legal citations.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, referenced in United States v. Gross citation.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, referenced in footer Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Jurisdiction).
|
Key Quotes (4)
"For the following reasons, the Court disagrees and denies the Defendant’s motion on this basis."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
Quote #1
"Under the Fifth Amendment’s Grand Jury Clause, “a defendant has the right to be tried only on charges contained in an indictment returned by a grand jury.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
Quote #2
"To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that either the proof at trial or the trial court’s jury instructions so altered an essential element of the charge that, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
Quote #3
"The Court first delineates the “core of criminality” of the crime alleged."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,181 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page179 of 221
A-379
A-379
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 22 of 45
prejudicial variance. For the following reasons, the Court disagrees and denies the Defendant’s
motion on this basis.
motion on this basis.
A. Applicable Law
Under the Fifth Amendment’s Grand Jury Clause, “a defendant has the right to be tried
only on charges contained in an indictment returned by a grand jury.” United States v. Wozniak,
126 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 1997). “[W]hen the charge upon which the defendant is tried differs
significantly from the charge upon which the grand jury voted,” a constructive amendment
occurs and reversal is required. United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021).
only on charges contained in an indictment returned by a grand jury.” United States v. Wozniak,
126 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 1997). “[W]hen the charge upon which the defendant is tried differs
significantly from the charge upon which the grand jury voted,” a constructive amendment
occurs and reversal is required. United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021).
“To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that either
the proof at trial or the trial court’s jury instructions so altered an essential element of the charge
that, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the
subject of the grand jury’s indictment.” United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir.
2003) (quoting United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 (2d Cir. 1998)). In making this
determination, the Court first delineates the “core of criminality” of the crime alleged. United
States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017), aff’d
sub nom. United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2019). The “core of criminality . . .
involves the essence of a crime, in general terms.” United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212,
225 (2d Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 418
(2d Cir. 2012)). The Court then determines whether the evidence or jury instructions at trial
created a “substantial likelihood” that the defendant was not convicted of the crime described in
that core, but instead of a crime “distinctly different.” D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 416, 419. The
Second Circuit has “consistently permitted significant flexibility in proof, provided that the
defendant was given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.” United States v.
the proof at trial or the trial court’s jury instructions so altered an essential element of the charge
that, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the
subject of the grand jury’s indictment.” United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir.
2003) (quoting United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 (2d Cir. 1998)). In making this
determination, the Court first delineates the “core of criminality” of the crime alleged. United
States v. Gross, No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017), aff’d
sub nom. United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2019). The “core of criminality . . .
involves the essence of a crime, in general terms.” United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212,
225 (2d Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 418
(2d Cir. 2012)). The Court then determines whether the evidence or jury instructions at trial
created a “substantial likelihood” that the defendant was not convicted of the crime described in
that core, but instead of a crime “distinctly different.” D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 416, 419. The
Second Circuit has “consistently permitted significant flexibility in proof, provided that the
defendant was given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.” United States v.
22
DOJ-OGR-00021005
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document