DOJ-OGR-00000021.jpg
683 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal opinion / appellate court decision
File Size:
683 KB
Summary
This document is page 20 of an appellate court opinion (likely 2nd Circuit) dated September 17, 2024, affirming a District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion. Maxwell argued that testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico constituted a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' violating the Fifth Amendment because it differed from the indictment charges. The court rejected this argument and affirmed the lower court's ruling.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Appealing a District Court denial regarding constructive amendment and prejudicial variance arguments.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned in a text fragment regarding intent to engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The court whose denial Maxwell is appealing.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Source of the document (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Implied by the formatting, case number style, and citations to 2d Cir. precedents.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where testimony alleged sexual abuse occurred.
|
|
|
Mentioned in relation to criminal offense laws in the text fragment.
|
Relationships (1)
Text fragment mentions intent regarding Jane engaging in sexual activity.
Key Quotes (4)
"Maxwell appeals the District Court's denial and argues that the alleged constructive amendment is a per se violation of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000021.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell argues that testimony about a witness's sexual abuse in New Mexico presented the jury with another basis for conviction, which is distinct from the charges in the Indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000021.jpg
Quote #2
"We disagree and affirm the District Court's denial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000021.jpg
Quote #3
"To satisfy 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.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000021.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,739 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page20 of 26
Maxwell subsequently filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the District Court's response, claiming that this response resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance. The District Court declined to reconsider its response and denied Maxwell's motion.
Maxwell appeals the District Court's denial and argues that the alleged constructive amendment is a per se violation of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, Maxwell argues that testimony about a witness's sexual abuse in New Mexico presented the jury with another basis for conviction, which is distinct from the charges in the Indictment. Similarly, Maxwell argues that this testimony resulted in a prejudicial variance from the Indictment. We disagree and affirm the District Court's denial.
We review the denial of a motion claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance de novo.37 To satisfy 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."38 We have explained that to prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that "the terms of the indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial
intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law." A-205.
37 See United States v. Dove, 884 F.3d 138, 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2018).
38 United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021).
20
DOJ-OGR-00000021
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document