{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "178",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 178 of 239\nof the indictment and draw inferences as to proof to be adduced at trial, for 'the sufficiency of the evidence is not appropriately addressed on a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment.'\" Id. (quoting United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772, 776-77 (2d. Cir. 1998)).\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 states in part that an indictment \"must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . .\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). There are two constitutional requirements an indictment must satisfy in order to be sufficient: first, it must \"contain[] the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform[] a defendant of the charge against which [s]he must defend,\" and second, it must \"enable[]\" a defendant \"to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.\" United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117). \"[A]n indictment parroting the language of a federal criminal statute is often sufficient . . . .\" Id. at 109. As a general matter, \"[a]n indictment does not . . . 'have to specify evidence or details of how the offence was committed.'\" United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan, 18, 2017) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). \"When the charges in an indictment have stated the elements of the offense and provided even minimal protection against double jeopardy,\" the Second Circuit \"has repeatedly refused, in the absence of any showing of prejudice, to dismiss . . . charges for lack of specificity.\" United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d. Cir. 1999)).\nAlthough courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tracking the language of the statute, such cases are \"very rare.\" Stringer, 730 F.3d at 125. For example, the Second Circuit has clarified that within this \"less-common category\"\n151\nDOJ-OGR-00003112",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 178 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of the indictment and draw inferences as to proof to be adduced at trial, for 'the sufficiency of the evidence is not appropriately addressed on a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment.'\" Id. (quoting United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772, 776-77 (2d. Cir. 1998)).\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 states in part that an indictment \"must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . .\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). There are two constitutional requirements an indictment must satisfy in order to be sufficient: first, it must \"contain[] the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform[] a defendant of the charge against which [s]he must defend,\" and second, it must \"enable[]\" a defendant \"to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.\" United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117). \"[A]n indictment parroting the language of a federal criminal statute is often sufficient . . . .\" Id. at 109. As a general matter, \"[a]n indictment does not . . . 'have to specify evidence or details of how the offence was committed.'\" United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan, 18, 2017) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). \"When the charges in an indictment have stated the elements of the offense and provided even minimal protection against double jeopardy,\" the Second Circuit \"has repeatedly refused, in the absence of any showing of prejudice, to dismiss . . . charges for lack of specificity.\" United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d. Cir. 1999)).\nAlthough courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tracking the language of the statute, such cases are \"very rare.\" Stringer, 730 F.3d at 125. For example, the Second Circuit has clarified that within this \"less-common category\"",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "151",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003112",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Second Circuit",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1998",
      "2007",
      "2017",
      "Jan 18, 2017",
      "2013",
      "1999",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "143 F.3d 772",
      "549 U.S. 102",
      "418 U.S.",
      "361 F. Supp. 2d 102",
      "730 F.3d 120",
      "194 F.3d. 37",
      "15 Cr. 611 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003112"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}