DOJ-OGR-00021815.jpg
603 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal opinion / appellate ruling (united states court of appeals for the second circuit)
File Size:
603 KB
Summary
This document is page 21 of a legal opinion (likely the appeal decision in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. The text discusses the legal concept of 'constructive amendment' of an indictment, ruling that the testimony of a witness named 'Jane' and a subsequent jury note did not improperly amend the charges against the defendant. The appellate court affirms the District Court's handling of jury instructions regarding the 'core of criminality' and 'Count Four' of the indictment.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Mentioned in the context of specific testimony presented by the Government.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the appeal (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on Case 22-1426 identifier), arguing regarding constructive amendment...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The court whose instructions and rulings are being reviewed and upheld.
|
|
| The Government |
Presented evidence and summation at trial.
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Implied by the 'We agree' language and citations to 2d Cir. cases; Case 22-1426 is a 2nd Circuit case number.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
Reference to 'evidence presented by the Government—namely, Jane’s testimony'
Key Quotes (3)
"We cannot conclude that a constructive amendment resulted from the evidence presented by the Government—namely, Jane’s testimony—or that it can be implied from the jury note."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021815.jpg
Quote #1
"“[t]he core of criminality of an offense involves the essence of a crime, in general terms; the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime falls outside that purview.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021815.jpg
Quote #2
"Therefore, the District Court correctly directed the jury to that instruction, which “accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021815.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,535 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page21 of 26
likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense
other than that charged in the indictment.”39 A constructive
amendment requires reversal.40
other than that charged in the indictment.”39 A constructive
amendment requires reversal.40
We cannot conclude that a constructive amendment resulted
from the evidence presented by the Government—namely, Jane’s
testimony—or that it can be implied from the jury note. We have
permitted significant flexibility in proof as long as a defendant was
“given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.”41 In turn,
“[t]he core of criminality of an offense involves the essence of a crime,
in general terms; the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime
falls outside that purview.”42
from the evidence presented by the Government—namely, Jane’s
testimony—or that it can be implied from the jury note. We have
permitted significant flexibility in proof as long as a defendant was
“given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial.”41 In turn,
“[t]he core of criminality of an offense involves the essence of a crime,
in general terms; the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime
falls outside that purview.”42
We agree with the District Court that the jury instructions, the
evidence presented at trial, and the Government’s summation
captured the core of criminality. As the District Court noted, while the
jury note was ambiguous in one sense, it was clear that it referred to
the second element of Count Four of the Indictment. Therefore, the
District Court correctly directed the jury to that instruction, which
“accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding
evidence presented at trial, and the Government’s summation
captured the core of criminality. As the District Court noted, while the
jury note was ambiguous in one sense, it was clear that it referred to
the second element of Count Four of the Indictment. Therefore, the
District Court correctly directed the jury to that instruction, which
“accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding
39 United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988).
40 See United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
41 United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A., 555 F.3d 303, 310 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (emphasis
omitted).
omitted).
42 D’Amelio, 683 F.3d at 418 (internal quotation marks omitted).
21
DOJ-OGR-00021815
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document