DOJ-OGR-00020850.jpg
584 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court letter
File Size:
584 KB
Summary
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.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Addressee of the legal document (The Honorable).
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal argument regarding potential conviction based on constructive amendment.
|
| Gross | Case Citation Name |
Referenced in United States v. Gross.
|
| D'Amelio | Case Citation Name |
Referenced in United States v. D'Amelio.
|
| Wozniak | Case Citation Name |
Referenced in United States v. Wozniak.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case number prefix 1:20-cr-00330 and S.D.N.Y. citation.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, mentioned in case citation.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Appellate court mentioned regarding legal flexibility.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in footer stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Court jurisdiction).
|
Relationships (1)
Document addressed to Judge Nathan concerning Ms. Maxwell's trial/indictment.
Key Quotes (4)
"First, without further instruction, the jury could convict Ms. Maxwell based on a constructive amendment and/or prejudicial variance from the S2 Indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020850.jpg
Quote #1
"To prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the terms of [an] indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020850.jpg
Quote #2
"...a constructive amendment constitutes a ‘per se violation’ of the defendant’s constitutional rights..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020850.jpg
Quote #3
"...an indictment that is drawn in specific terms may be read to specify a narrower set of facts—such that the proof of completely distinct facts at trial could lead to a constructive amendment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020850.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,938 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page24 of 221
A-224
A-224
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 2 of 7
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 27, 2021
Page 2
December 27, 2021
Page 2
Constructive Amendment / Variance
First, without further instruction, the jury could convict Ms. Maxwell based on a
constructive amendment and/or prejudicial variance from the S2 Indictment. The Court has
recently explained the law on constructive amendment and variance. “To prevail on a constructive
amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the terms of [an] indictment are in effect
altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of
the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been
convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.” United States v. Gross, No. 15-
cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017) (cleaned up). “Because the
doctrine of constructive amendment protects a defendant’s Grand Jury Clause rights, a
constructive amendment constitutes a ‘per se violation’ of the defendant’s constitutional rights—
i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a specific showing of prejudice.” Id. (quoting
United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
constructive amendment and/or prejudicial variance from the S2 Indictment. The Court has
recently explained the law on constructive amendment and variance. “To prevail on a constructive
amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the terms of [an] indictment are in effect
altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of
the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been
convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.” United States v. Gross, No. 15-
cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017) (cleaned up). “Because the
doctrine of constructive amendment protects a defendant’s Grand Jury Clause rights, a
constructive amendment constitutes a ‘per se violation’ of the defendant’s constitutional rights—
i.e. there is no requirement that a defendant make a specific showing of prejudice.” Id. (quoting
United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
Although the Second Circuit has “consistently permitted significant flexibility” in how the
government proves the crime alleged, the defendant must be “given notice of the core of
criminality to be proven at trial.” Id. (cleaned up). “[A]lthough an indictment ‘drawn in general
terms’ may articulate a broad core of criminality, an indictment that is drawn in specific terms
may be read to specify a narrower set of facts—such that the proof of completely distinct facts at
trial could lead to a constructive amendment.” Id. (quoting United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d
105, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1997)).
government proves the crime alleged, the defendant must be “given notice of the core of
criminality to be proven at trial.” Id. (cleaned up). “[A]lthough an indictment ‘drawn in general
terms’ may articulate a broad core of criminality, an indictment that is drawn in specific terms
may be read to specify a narrower set of facts—such that the proof of completely distinct facts at
trial could lead to a constructive amendment.” Id. (quoting United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d
105, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1997)).
2068538.1
DOJ-OGR-00020850
DOJ-OGR-00020850
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document