Khalupsky
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279 (2d Cir. 2021). | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014872.jpg
This document appears to be page 22 of a legal filing (likely an opinion or government brief) dated December 2, 2024, related to the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance between the evidence presented at trial and the original indictment, citing various legal precedents (Parker, Salmonese, Dove) to support the validity of the conviction under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00014870.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by allowing testimony about a sexual abuse incident in New Mexico, claiming this constituted a constructive amendment to her indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The appellate court is reviewing this claim and affirms the District Court's denial, outlining the legal standards for what constitutes a constructive amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the legal arguments concerning the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that it is not uncertain what conduct Maxwell was convicted for and that the evidence presented at trial did not prejudicially vary from the indictment. The text cites several legal precedents to define the high standards a defendant must meet to prove a prejudicial variance that would warrant a reversal of the conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order (Document 657) filed on April 29, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page outlines the 'Applicable Law' regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and 'prejudicial variance' or 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Second Circuit cases) to define the standards for determining if a defendant was convicted of a crime different from the one charged in the indictment. The Court denies the Defendant's motion on this basis.
DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a larger filing, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to define the high standard for proving such a variance, asserting that the defendant was not misled and their rights were not violated. The document concludes that, similar to a previous argument about constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts outside the scope of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021869.jpg
This page is from a legal document (likely an appellate brief or opinion) stamped September 17, 2024, discussing the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that there was no prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that Maxwell was properly convicted of conduct charged by the grand jury. It cites several Second Circuit precedents to support the standard for legal variance and prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a filing dated September 17, 2024, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to establish the high standard required to prove such a variance and resulting prejudice. The document concludes that the evidence at trial did not prove facts different from those in the indictment, thereby refuting the defendant's claim.
DOJ-OGR-00021814.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021731.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal appellate brief filed on June 29, 2023, related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance in the trial, asserting that the jury did not convict Maxwell solely based on the transport of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico, but rather on intentions to violate New York law. It cites various legal precedents regarding 'variance' and 'constructive amendment' in indictments.
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
This legal document, page 70 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the applicable law regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' in criminal indictments. It cites several precedents, including United States v. Khalupsky and United States v. D'Amelio, to define the conditions under which trial evidence or jury instructions improperly alter the original charges brought by a grand jury. The document distinguishes between a constructive amendment, which modifies the essential elements of the offense, and a variance, where the indictment's terms are unchanged but the evidence proves different facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021656.jpg
This document is page viii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various federal court cases where the United States was the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the parent document.
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment. It cites numerous precedents to argue that for a variance to warrant reversal of a conviction, the defendant must demonstrate 'substantial prejudice'. The document concludes by noting that the Defendant has filed a motion under Rule 33 to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial.
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-00009569.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, specifically page 7 of Document 621 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 25, 2022. The prosecution argues that there was no improper variance between the S2 Indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that the proof of a scheme with Epstein to transport minors to New York for criminal sexual activity directly matched the charges. The document cites legal precedents to support the argument that the defendant was not prejudiced.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity