DOJ-OGR-00000396.jpg
639 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
639 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a defense attorney argues against the legality of a prosecution. The attorney claims the government is improperly relying on old evidence from a 2007 Florida case and is violating established Department of Justice procedure by prosecuting the same conduct in a second jurisdiction (Georgia) after it was handled in the first (Florida).
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Marrah | Judge |
Mentioned in relation to his decisions in the CVRA case which led to the recusal of Florida prosecutors.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice | Government agency |
Mentioned as having reviewed an NPA in 2008 and as the agency with which one negotiates in interstate cases.
|
| Southern District of Florida | Judicial district |
Identified as the source of evidence from a case in 2007 that the government is currently relying on.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed in the footer of the document, likely the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007
Evidence, including message pads and telephone records, was generated by a case in the Southern District of Florida.
Southern District of Florida
2008
The Department of Justice reviewed the NPA on several occasions and confirmed the appropriateness of the discretion shown in Florida.
Florida
Florida prosecutors were recused from a case as a result of Judge Marrah's decisions in the CVRA case.
Florida
Florida prosecutors
Judge Marrah
Relationships (1)
prosecutors in Florida
→
Professional
→
prosecutors in Georgia
The document states there was communication between them and that the Georgia prosecutors took over the case from the Florida prosecutors after they were recused.
Key Quotes (1)
"I can say as a criminal defense lawyer of 45 years, when there is an interstate wire, mailing, travel, and there is one district that is conducting an investigation, you negotiate with that district and count on the Department of Justice to what it does every day decade after decade, which is not to go to the second jurisdiction that received the mail that was sent from the immunizing jurisdiction and have a prosecution on the very same conduct."Source
— Unnamed criminal defense lawyer
(The speaker, identifying as an experienced defense lawyer, is arguing that the current prosecution violates standard Department of Justice procedure by pursuing a case in a second jurisdiction for conduct already addressed in another.)
DOJ-OGR-00000396.jpg
Quote #1
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document