DOJ-OGR-00009567.jpg
673 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal order (united states district court)
File Size:
673 KB
Summary
Page 5 of 51 from a court filing (Document 621) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on Feb 25, 2022. The text argues that no 'constructive amendment' of the indictment occurred regarding the charges of enticing and transporting victim 'Jane' and other minor victims to New York. The remainder of the page outlines applicable law regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, citing precedents like U.S. v. Khalupsky and U.S. v. Dove to define the legal standard for constructive amendments.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Accused |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE); document discusses charges of enticing/transpor...
|
| Jane | Victim |
Pseudonym for a victim transported to New York for illegal sexual activity.
|
| Minor Victims | Victims |
Group of individuals the defendant conspired to victimize.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case number and citations.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in legal precedents).
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York (cited in legal precedents).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Jane was transported to engage in illegal sexual activity.
|
Relationships (2)
defendant enticed and transported Jane to New York with the intent that Jane engage in illegal sexual activity
defendant conspired to do so regarding Jane and the other Minor Victims
Key Quotes (4)
"defendant enticed and transported Jane to New York with the intent that Jane engage in illegal sexual activity"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009567.jpg
Quote #1
"Accordingly, no constructive amendment or variance occurred."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009567.jpg
Quote #2
"“[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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009567.jpg
Quote #3
"a defendant “must show that the evidence and jury instructions at trial completely shifted the core of criminality—i.e. proved behavior entirely separate from that identified in the indictment.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009567.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,961 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 51
defendant enticed and transported Jane to New York with the intent that Jane engage in illegal
sexual activity, and that the defendant conspired to do so regarding Jane and the other Minor
Victims. That is the issue the Court instructed the jury to resolve. And that is the criminal conduct
charged in Counts One through Four of the S2 Indictment. Accordingly, no constructive
amendment or variance occurred.
sexual activity, and that the defendant conspired to do so regarding Jane and the other Minor
Victims. That is the issue the Court instructed the jury to resolve. And that is the criminal conduct
charged in Counts One through Four of the S2 Indictment. Accordingly, no constructive
amendment or variance occurred.
A. Applicable Law
Under the Fifth Amendment’s Grand Jury Clause, “an indictment must contain the
elements of the offense charged and fairly inform the defendant of the charge against which he
must defend.” United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021). “[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. Id. “Not every alteration
of an indictment, however, rises to the level of a constructive amendment.” United States v.
Dove, 884 F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir. 2018). Instead, “[t]o prevail on a constructive amendment
claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the
presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense
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. 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). That is, a defendant “must show that the evidence and jury instructions
at trial completely shifted the core of criminality—i.e. proved behavior entirely separate from
that identified in the indictment.” Id. at *23.
elements of the offense charged and fairly inform the defendant of the charge against which he
must defend.” United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021). “[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. Id. “Not every alteration
of an indictment, however, rises to the level of a constructive amendment.” United States v.
Dove, 884 F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir. 2018). Instead, “[t]o prevail on a constructive amendment
claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the
presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense
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. 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). That is, a defendant “must show that the evidence and jury instructions
at trial completely shifted the core of criminality—i.e. proved behavior entirely separate from
that identified in the indictment.” Id. at *23.
This analysis begins by identifying the “core of criminality,” that is, “the essence of a
4
4
DOJ-OGR-00009567
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document