court filing: DOJ-OGR-00021868
Summary
The document discusses a court case where the defendant was charged with an offense, and the jury's note raised concerns about constructive amendment. The court ultimately agrees with the District Court that the jury instructions and evidence presented captured the 'core of criminality' and did not result in a constructive amendment. The court cites various precedents to support its decision.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (2)
Related Documents (6)
Court Filing: DOJ-OGR-00021862
The court discusses the application of 18 U.S.C. § 3283 to the defendant's case, rejecting a categorical approach in favor of a case-specific approach, and determines that Counts Three and Four qualify as offenses involving the sexual abuse of a minor. The court also addresses Maxwell's argument that the statute of limitations bars certain counts, citing Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
Court Filing: 704
The government opposes Ghislaine Maxwell's request to allow three defense witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or first names, arguing that it is unprecedented and not necessary to protect the defendant's constitutional rights. The government contends that the witnesses do not fit into established categories of witnesses who are permitted to testify anonymously, such as victims of sex abuse or undercover law enforcement officers.
Court Filing: 708
The prosecution responds to the defendant's letter regarding prior inconsistent statements, agreeing to stipulate to certain statements while objecting to others as inadmissible or cumulative. The letter outlines the applicable law and discusses specific statements, providing tables to clarify their positions on each statement.
court filing: Case 1:20-cr-00830-PAE Document 178 Filed 03/27/22 Page 26 of 26
The court rules that there was no constructive amendment in the defendant's trial, as the jury instructions, evidence, and government's summation captured the 'core of criminality' of the offense. The court agrees with the District Court's handling of a jury note and its direction to the jury. The decision relies on precedent from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Court Filing: Case1:20-cr-00030-PAE
The court discusses the application of § 3283 to the defendant's offenses involving the sexual abuse of a minor and determines that Counts Three and Four qualify under this statute. The court also addresses Maxwell's argument that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations, referencing relevant case law such as Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
Court Filing - Letter to Judge: 547
The defense attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing against the government's attempt to limit Dr. Loftus's expert testimony on the science of memory and suggestive questioning. The letter cites examples from witness testimony and government interviews, asserting that the government's actions are an effort to restrict relevant testimony and undermine the defendant's right to a defense.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.