Wozniak
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
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-00020850.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 27, 2021, regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' from the S2 Indictment, citing case law (Gross, D'Amelio, Wozniak) to define the constitutional protections against convicting a defendant on charges not specified in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021139.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00008940.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg
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.
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-00008791.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of the jury convicting Ms. Maxwell based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, which would be a per se violation of her constitutional rights. The argument is supported by citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013074.jpg
A page from an academic text (page 158) discussing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). It explores benchmarks for AI, such as the 'Wozniak coffee test,' and discusses the difficulty of measuring progress toward AGI. The text proposes 'Cognitive Synergy' as a hypothesis for why intermediate testing is difficult, suggesting that AGI requires the interaction of multiple components (citing CogPrime) rather than isolated skills. The document bears a House Oversight footer.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity