mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021731.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "84",
    "document_number": "79",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page84 of 93\n71\nalleged in the indictment.\" United States v. Banki, 685 F.3d 99, 119 (2d Cir. 2012). Reversal due to a variance is appropriate only when the defendant can establish \"that substantial prejudice occurred at trial as a result of the variance,\" a showing that cannot be made \"where the pleading and the proof substantially correspond, where the variance is not of a character that could have misled the defendant at trial, and where the variance is not such as to deprive the accused of his right to be protected against another prosecution for the same offense.\" Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294. So long as a defendant receives notice of the Government's theory, the defendant cannot show prejudice. See, e.g., Banki, 685 F.3d at 119.\nThis Court reviews claims of constructive amendment and prejudicial variance de novo. Dove, 884 F.3d at 146, 148.\nC. Discussion\nThere is no likelihood—much less a substantial likelihood—that the jury convicted Maxwell solely because Jane was transported to New Mexico. At no point during the trial, including its summation, did the Government argue that the jury could convict on a theory that Maxwell intended Jane to be abused in New Mexico. Similarly, the District Court's charge required the jury to decide whether Maxwell intended to violate New York law. The trial contained no instructions describing for the jury any particular criminal statute in New Mexico, or any other basis by which a jury could convict based on conduct in New Mexico.\nDOJ-OGR-00021731",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page84 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "71\nalleged in the indictment.\" United States v. Banki, 685 F.3d 99, 119 (2d Cir. 2012). Reversal due to a variance is appropriate only when the defendant can establish \"that substantial prejudice occurred at trial as a result of the variance,\" a showing that cannot be made \"where the pleading and the proof substantially correspond, where the variance is not of a character that could have misled the defendant at trial, and where the variance is not such as to deprive the accused of his right to be protected against another prosecution for the same offense.\" Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294. So long as a defendant receives notice of the Government's theory, the defendant cannot show prejudice. See, e.g., Banki, 685 F.3d at 119.\nThis Court reviews claims of constructive amendment and prejudicial variance de novo. Dove, 884 F.3d at 146, 148.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Discussion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There is no likelihood—much less a substantial likelihood—that the jury convicted Maxwell solely because Jane was transported to New Mexico. At no point during the trial, including its summation, did the Government argue that the jury could convict on a theory that Maxwell intended Jane to be abused in New Mexico. Similarly, the District Court's charge required the jury to decide whether Maxwell intended to violate New York law. The trial contained no instructions describing for the jury any particular criminal statute in New Mexico, or any other basis by which a jury could convict based on conduct in New Mexico.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021731",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "3536060",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021731"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a legal brief or opinion, discussing a case involving Maxwell and Jane. The text references various legal precedents and statutes. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}