Macchia
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667 (2d Cir. 1994) | Second Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020993.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing analyzing whether two conspiracy counts (Count Three and Count Five) against a defendant should be considered a single conspiracy. The analysis focuses on the 'Korfant' factors, specifically the overlap in time, similarity of operations, and the roles of participants like Sarah Kellen. The document argues that the complete overlap in time periods and similarity in the methods of abuse favor the Defendant's position that there was only one conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00020989.jpg
This page from a legal document details the legal framework used by the Second Circuit to determine if multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy, which is relevant to double jeopardy claims. It lists the eight "Korfant factors" and explains the burden-shifting process where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous claim, after which the burden shifts to the government to prove the conspiracies are distinct. The text relies heavily on citations to previous court cases to establish these legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00002306.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense argues that Count One and Count Three of the indictment are 'multiplicitous' and violate the Fifth Amendment because they allege identical overt acts, geographic scope (NY, FL, NM, UK), and objectives. The filing requests the Court dismiss one of the counts.
DOJ-OGR-00002306(1).jpg
This document is a page from a defense motion (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the case number 1:20-cr-00330) filed on January 25, 2021. It argues that Count One and Count Three of the indictment are multiplicitous and violate the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment because they allege identical overt acts, geographic scope (NY, FL, NM, UK), and objectives. The filing concludes by requesting the Court dismiss one of the counts.
DOJ-OGR-00002304(1).jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 122) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The text discusses legal arguments regarding double jeopardy and multiplicity, specifically citing the 'Blockburger test' and the 'Korfant factors' used by the Second Circuit to determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It outlines eight specific factors courts use to analyze the interdependence and overlap of alleged conspiracies.
DOJ-OGR-00002302(1).jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It serves as an index, listing the legal precedents—including court cases, federal statutes, state law, and constitutional provisions—that are cited in the associated legal brief. The authorities listed are used to support the arguments made in the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE dated April 29, 2022, analyzes the legal distinctions between two conspiracy charges, Count Three and Count Five. The author argues that despite being charged under the same statute, the counts are not multiplicitous because they have different statutory objectives, legal definitions (e.g., of a 'minor'), and required elements of intent, citing precedents like Macchia, Estrada, and Villa. The document refutes the Government's claim that a single distinguishing factor is dispositive in this analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00010372.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, outlines the Second Circuit's legal framework for determining whether multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy or distinct conspiracies, thereby implicating double jeopardy concerns. It details the eight 'Korfant factors' used in this analysis and describes the burden-shifting framework where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous showing of a single conspiracy, after which the burden shifts to the Government to prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009589.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 621) in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text presents legal arguments citing Second Circuit precedents (specifically the 'Korfant factors') to argue that separate conspiracy counts are distinct and do not violate double jeopardy protections. The prosecution argues that Counts Three and Five charge different offenses and requests the Court reject the defendant's multiplicity claim.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity