DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg

736 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 736 KB
Summary

This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing. The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as affidavits, to establish a genuine factual dispute that would warrant a hearing. The filing contrasts the current defendant's lack of evidence with several precedent cases (Aleman, Sattar, Feldman) where hearings were granted because defendants submitted supporting affidavits or made uncontested assertions.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Aleman Defendant
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002).
Sattar Defendant
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Feldman Defendant
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019).
Epstein
Mentioned in the context that the current defendant has not offered affidavits from his former defense attorneys.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
The Court Judicial body
Refers to the court presiding over the current case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
Second Circuit Judicial body
A U.S. Court of Appeals cited for its rulings in United States v. Aleman and United States v. Feldman.
Government Government agency
The prosecuting party in the legal cases mentioned.
DOJ Government agency
Appears in the document control number 'DOJ-OGR-00002983' at the bottom of the page.

Timeline (4 events)

2002
The Second Circuit case United States v. Aleman, where it was explained that a hearing is not always required when a defendant accuses the government of failing to uphold a bargain.
Second Circuit
United States Aleman
2003
The S.D.N.Y. case United States v. Sattar, which applied the Aleman precedent and ordered a hearing based on an attorney's affidavit.
S.D.N.Y.
United States Sattar
2019
The Second Circuit case United States v. Feldman, where a hearing was required based on uncontested assertions about a prosecutor's representations.
Second Circuit
United States Feldman
The defendant in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing regarding a plea or non-prosecution agreement.
The Court
defendant

Locations (1)

Location Context
The Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Sattar.

Relationships (1)

Epstein Professional (Client-Attorney) Epstein’s former defense attorneys
The document states that the defendant has not offered any affidavits from 'Epstein’s former defense attorneys', indicating a past professional relationship.

Key Quotes (2)

"where the existence or scope of a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement is in genuine dispute."
Source
— The defendant (arguing) (Cited from the defendant's motion (Def. Mot. 1 at 29) as the condition under which courts conduct evidentiary hearings.)
DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
Quote #1
"a district court need not conduct a hearing every time a defendant summarily accuses the government of failing to live up to an alleged bargain."
Source
— Second Circuit (A quote from the ruling in United States v. Aleman, used to argue against the defendant's request for a hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
Quote #2

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document