DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
756 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (memorandum of law/motion)
File Size:
756 KB
Summary
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments and case citations regarding the severance of charges and 'joinder,' specifically arguing that perjury counts should not be joined with substantive crimes if they are not sufficiently connected physically, temporally, or transactionally. The document cites precedents such as *United States v. Rivera*, *Randazzo*, and *Potamitis* to support the argument that unrelated offenses should be tried separately.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| AJN | Judge |
Initials in case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Alison J. Nathan)
|
| Rivera | Defendant in cited case |
United States v. Rivera (2008)
|
| Randazzo | Defendant in cited case |
United States v. Randazzo (1996)
|
| Martinez | Defendant in cited case |
United States v. Martinez (1993)
|
| Brown | Defendant in cited case |
United States v. Brown (2008)
|
| Potamitis | Defendant in cited case |
United States v. Potamitis (1984)
|
| Botti | Defendant in cited case |
United States v. Botti (2009)
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ |
Indicated in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002286
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, frequently cited
|
|
| 1st Cir. |
First Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in Randazzo
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, cited in Martinez and Botti
|
|
| E.D. Pa. |
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, cited in Brown
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-01-25
Document 120 filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Court
Key Quotes (4)
"Offenses are 'connected' or part of a 'common scheme or plan' if the counts 'grow out of related transactions.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
Quote #1
"joinder is inappropriate when '[c]ommission of one of the offenses neither depended upon nor necessarily led to the commission of the other'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
Quote #2
"Similarly, offenses that are separated by time and location, and were allegedly committed under different circumstances, are not sufficiently connected to warrant joinder."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
Quote #3
"joinder is not appropriate when the perjury or false statement allegations do not relate to, or have only a speculative connection to, the other charges in the indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,214 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 8 of 19
Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 1991) (quotations and citation omitted). ““Similar’ charges
include those that are ‘somewhat alike,’ or those ‘having a general likeness’ to each
other.” United States v. Rivera, 546 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at
926). Offenses are “connected” or part of a “common scheme or plan” if the counts “grow out of
related transactions.” United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623, 627 (1st Cir. 1996). By contrast,
offenses are not “connected” and joinder is inappropriate when “[c]ommission of one of the
offenses neither depended upon nor necessarily led to the commission of the other; proof of the
one act neither constituted nor depended upon proof of the other.” Halper, 590 F.2d at 429.
include those that are ‘somewhat alike,’ or those ‘having a general likeness’ to each
other.” United States v. Rivera, 546 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at
926). Offenses are “connected” or part of a “common scheme or plan” if the counts “grow out of
related transactions.” United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623, 627 (1st Cir. 1996). By contrast,
offenses are not “connected” and joinder is inappropriate when “[c]ommission of one of the
offenses neither depended upon nor necessarily led to the commission of the other; proof of the
one act neither constituted nor depended upon proof of the other.” Halper, 590 F.2d at 429.
Similarly, offenses that are separated by time and location, and were allegedly committed
under different circumstances, are not sufficiently connected to warrant joinder. See United
States v. Martinez, Nos. S2 92 Cr. 839 (SWK), 1993 WL 322768, at *8-*9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19,
1993) (granting severance of firearm possession and narcotics conspiracy counts where firearm
was seized in different location over four months after narcotics conspiracy ended “under
circumstances having no bearing on either the alleged narcotics conspiracy, or any of
[defendant’s] coconspirators”); United States v. Brown, No. 07-0296-1, 2008 WL 161146, at *5
(E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) (granting severance where a firearm possession count was unrelated
“both physically and temporally” to the narcotics counts in the indictment (emphasis original)).
under different circumstances, are not sufficiently connected to warrant joinder. See United
States v. Martinez, Nos. S2 92 Cr. 839 (SWK), 1993 WL 322768, at *8-*9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19,
1993) (granting severance of firearm possession and narcotics conspiracy counts where firearm
was seized in different location over four months after narcotics conspiracy ended “under
circumstances having no bearing on either the alleged narcotics conspiracy, or any of
[defendant’s] coconspirators”); United States v. Brown, No. 07-0296-1, 2008 WL 161146, at *5
(E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) (granting severance where a firearm possession count was unrelated
“both physically and temporally” to the narcotics counts in the indictment (emphasis original)).
Although the Second Circuit has recognized that it is generally permissible to join
“underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts” where the false declarations “concern the
substantive offenses,” United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984), joinder is not
appropriate when the perjury or false statement allegations do not relate to, or have only a
speculative connection to, the other charges in the indictment. See United States v. Botti, No.
3:08-cr-00230 (CSH), 2009 WL 3157582, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009) (severing structuring
“underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts” where the false declarations “concern the
substantive offenses,” United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984), joinder is not
appropriate when the perjury or false statement allegations do not relate to, or have only a
speculative connection to, the other charges in the indictment. See United States v. Botti, No.
3:08-cr-00230 (CSH), 2009 WL 3157582, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009) (severing structuring
4
DOJ-OGR-00002286
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document