D’Amelio
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014871.jpg
This page from a legal document, likely a court opinion, discusses and rejects a defendant's claim of a 'constructive amendment' to their indictment. The court finds that the evidence presented by the Government, including a witness named Jane's testimony, and the jury instructions from the District Court, stayed within the 'core of criminality' of the charged offense. The court also affirms the District Court's handling of an ambiguous jury note, concluding it did not lead to an improper conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00021898.jpg
This page from a legal document discusses whether a constructive amendment to an indictment occurred during a trial. The court concludes that neither the Government's evidence, including Jane's testimony, nor an ambiguous jury note constituted such an amendment. The court agrees with the lower District Court, finding that its jury instructions properly captured the "core of criminality" of the charged offense.
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 29, 2022, in which a court outlines the applicable law regarding constructive amendments to a grand jury indictment. The court explains that under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant can only be tried on the charges in the indictment, and details the legal standard for determining if the trial evidence or jury instructions improperly altered the "core of criminality" of the alleged crime. The court cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to support its analysis before denying the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009575.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, refutes the defendant's argument that a constructive amendment occurred during trial. The prosecution argues that Jane's testimony about events in New Mexico was permissibly used to prove the defendant's intent for abuse to occur in New York. The document asserts that the jury was not erroneously convicted on a theory of guilt for crimes in New Mexico, as this was not pursued by the Government or allowed by jury instructions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity