DOJ-OGR-00002304(1).jpg
673 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion page
File Size:
673 KB
Summary
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 122) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The text discusses legal arguments regarding double jeopardy and multiplicity, specifically citing the 'Blockburger test' and the 'Korfant factors' used by the Second Circuit to determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It outlines eight specific factors courts use to analyze the interdependence and overlap of alleged conspiracies.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Swaim | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in United States v. Swaim regarding repetition of detail.
|
| Blockburger | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in Blockburger v. United States regarding double jeopardy tests.
|
| Estrada | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in United States v. Estrada regarding conspiracy tests.
|
| Korfant | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in United States v. Korfant; source of the 'Korfant factors'.
|
| Macchia | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in United States v. Macchia.
|
| Diallo | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in United States v. Diallo.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited as the authority for the multifactor test (2d Cir.).
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
Cited in Swaim (5th Cir.).
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-01-25
Filing of Document 122 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
US District Court (SDNY implied by AJN/Case number)
Key Quotes (4)
"“[N]o dominant factor or single touchstone determines whether the compared conspiracies are in law and fact the same.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002304(1).jpg
Quote #1
"where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test . . . to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002304(1).jpg
Quote #2
"the Second Circuit has adopted a multifactor test for determining whether the conspiracies amount to the same offense for double jeopardy purposes."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002304(1).jpg
Quote #3
"These factors include: (1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments; (2) the overlap of participants; (3) the overlap of time; (4) similarity of operation; (5) the existence of common overt acts; (6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts occurred; (7) common objectives; and (8) the degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002304(1).jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,920 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 122 Filed 01/25/21 Page 5 of 9
the defendant from the repetition of detail of a single course of conduct.” United States v.
Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1534 (5th Cir. 1985).
Swaim, 757 F.2d 1530, 1534 (5th Cir. 1985).
Generally, “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct
statutory provisions, the test . . . to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is
whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United
States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). However, where an accused is charged with two or more
conspiracies in violation of the same statutory provision—in this case, the general conspiracy
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371—the Second Circuit has adopted a multifactor test for determining
whether the conspiracies amount to the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. These factors
include: (1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments; (2) the overlap of
participants; (3) the overlap of time; (4) similarity of operation; (5) the existence of common
overt acts; (6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts
occurred; (7) common objectives; and (8) the degree of interdependence between alleged distinct
conspiracies. United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180-81 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing the “Korfant
factors” from United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); accord
United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667-68 (2d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Diallo,
507 Fed. App’x 89 (2d Cir. 2013) (referring to Korfant factors as correct test to determine
whether two conspiracies charged in same indictment are same offense and therefore
multiplicitous). “[N]o dominant factor or single touchstone determines whether the compared
conspiracies are in law and fact the same.” Estrada, 320 F.3d at 181 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
statutory provisions, the test . . . to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is
whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United
States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). However, where an accused is charged with two or more
conspiracies in violation of the same statutory provision—in this case, the general conspiracy
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371—the Second Circuit has adopted a multifactor test for determining
whether the conspiracies amount to the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. These factors
include: (1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments; (2) the overlap of
participants; (3) the overlap of time; (4) similarity of operation; (5) the existence of common
overt acts; (6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts
occurred; (7) common objectives; and (8) the degree of interdependence between alleged distinct
conspiracies. United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180-81 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing the “Korfant
factors” from United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); accord
United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667-68 (2d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Diallo,
507 Fed. App’x 89 (2d Cir. 2013) (referring to Korfant factors as correct test to determine
whether two conspiracies charged in same indictment are same offense and therefore
multiplicitous). “[N]o dominant factor or single touchstone determines whether the compared
conspiracies are in law and fact the same.” Estrada, 320 F.3d at 181 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
2
DOJ-OGR-00002304
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document