DOJ-OGR-00014326.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO a oO = be N Ww = Hs Oo a OY a ~] a oO a Ke) 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LCT1MAX1 Document 765 _— Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 95 2760 authority if the Court would like -- that the fact that there are proper nouns in the "to wit" clauses does not mean the government is bound by them as elements of the offense, as long as the government is proceeding on the essential elements of the crime as charged by the grand jury. And I think there's no suggestion -- it's quite clear that the government has been nses in the indictment and there's no trying to prove th need to include wo (eo) rds L ike "travel from Florida to New York," or "Jane," to avoid any suggestion of a variance. TH | COURT dispute was in the parties' proposed charge, and I balanced I think, as appropri : Ye ate, s, I agree with that. Obviously this including the name of the individual where a particular count applies only to them, but not otherwise restatin and th lements g fac ach o tually in the explanation of the counts f the factual points to be proved. So think here, Mr. Rohrbach, you didn't disagree with substituting Jane for an individual? MR. ROHRBACH: government thinks line 11, it says i t rel Well, that just creates th th the charge is fine as it is because, in ates to Jane, and the government would be fine with adding "solely to Jane," or "relates," if that's what the defense w ould like. I do think adding Jane in line 6 would create a problem when it's later incorporated by the conspiracy instruc tion. THE COURT SOU : Ok ay. 1 agree with that. And that's the THERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014326