| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
This legal document argues that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant, Maxwell, was convicted on Counts Three and Four based on conduct that was not charged in the indictment, specifically conduct in New Mexico. The filing contends that the jury was not properly instructed that the charged offense required travel from Florida to New York, potentially leading to an improper conviction based on uncharged acts. This would constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment.
This legal document argues that there is a substantial likelihood that Ms. Maxwell was improperly convicted on Mann Act counts. The defense contends the conviction may have been based on testimony about conduct in New Mexico, which does not violate New York law, thereby constituting a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment that broadened the charges beyond what was originally presented by the government.
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum or brief, discussing the legal concept of "constructive amendment" in criminal law. It cites several Second Circuit precedents (D'Amelio, Roshko, Wozniak, Attanasio) to define the "core of criminality" that must be established in an indictment to provide proper notice to a defendant. The text outlines the legal test for determining if the evidence presented at trial improperly broadened the charges beyond what was specified in the indictment.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity