DOJ-OGR-00021814.jpg
683 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal opinion / appellate court document
File Size:
683 KB
Summary
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) dated September 17, 2024. It details Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' of her indictment, specifically concerning testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Appealing a District Court denial regarding constructive amendment and prejudicial variance.
|
| Jane | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned in a quote regarding intent to engage in sexual activity.
|
| Dove | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Dove.
|
| Khalupsky | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Khalupsky.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The lower court whose decision is being appealed.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Implied by citations (2d Cir.) and the appellate nature of the text ('We review...').
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer DOJ-OGR-00021814).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Unknown (during trial)
Testimony presented regarding a witness's sexual abuse.
New Mexico (abuse location), Courtroom (testimony location)
Witness
Jury
Unknown (prior to appeal)
Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the District Court's response.
District Court
Unknown (prior to appeal)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where testimony about a witness's sexual abuse occurred.
|
|
|
Referenced in relation to violation of New York law.
|
Relationships (1)
Text refers to intent that Jane engage 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-00021814.jpg
Quote #1
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021814.jpg
Quote #2
"We disagree and affirm the District Court’s denial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021814.jpg
Quote #3
"intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021814.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-00021814
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document